Toward individual-level calibration in affect recognition with perceptual adjustment queries

In-the-wild expression recognition persistently fails on a few rare emotions, and the standard explanation is class imbalance. Through a controlled multi-task study on two benchmarks, we show the failure is instead a property of affect geometry: the rare classes are degenerate on Russell's circumplex, and that degeneracy bounds what any loss or cost can achieve. Our instrument is a circumplex-cost optimal-transport term that prices expression confusions by their valence-arousal distance. The term improves the official score and expression macro-F1, but a control most studies omit shows the gain is not geometric: a uniform cost, equivalent to a generic confidence penalty, matches it on Aff-Wild2 (p=0.625) and significantly exceeds it on AffectNet (+0.057 over base, larger than the circumplex). What the geometry reshapes is the structure of the errors, making them affectively nearer the truth on Aff-Wild2 (p=0.031 against the uniform control), an effect that does not survive on AffectNet, where a visual confound at the far corner of the circumplex overwhelms it. The rare-class failure, by contrast, is stable across both datasets we examine: the degenerate pairs (anger-fear on Aff-Wild2, anger-contempt on AffectNet) resist frequency-based interventions, the transport term, and an action-unit-augmented cost built specifically to separate them. We conclude that progress on rare expressions requires representations that distinguish the classes, not supervision that reprices their confusions, and we provide the controls and metrics needed to tell the two apart.

Understanding perceptual differences between autistic and neurotypical adults requires behavioral assays that are sensitive, reliable, and mechanistically informative. Facial emotion perception is a useful test case because group differences have been reported, but findings vary across studies. Here we show that this variability may reflect image-level sparsity: autistic-neurotypical differences in emotion judgments were concentrated in a small subset of diagnostic facial expressions rather than spread uniformly across stimuli. We trained population-specific artificial neural network models to predict image-level judgments for autistic and neurotypical participants, then used these models to select novel faces predicted to maximize group separation. In an independent cohort, model-selected images produced larger behavioral differences than matched random images. We then used the same models with a generative adversarial network to transform diagnostic images toward greater predicted group agreement. In phenotype-matched validation, synthesized images reduced behavioral separation relative to their matched originals. These results establish a model-guided framework for discovering and transforming stimuli that reveal population-specific perceptual differences. More broadly, they show how behavioral phenotyping can move beyond averaging across fixed stimulus sets toward optimized assays that identify the conditions under which neurodivergent perception diverges or converges.

Wrist electrodermal activity (EDA) differs in amplitude from one person to the next, so affect-recognition models normalize their input before classification. Studies that test such models on held-out subjects seldom report where the normalization statistics come from, yet statistics computed from the held-out subject's own recording give the model information that a device does not have when it is first worn. We asked how this choice alters the measured benefit of pretraining. A compact convolutional network, SAFE-EDA, was pretrained on expert artifact annotations from 43 subjects and compared with the same network trained from scratch on the Wearable Stress and Affect Detection (WESAD) dataset (15 subjects, leave-one-subject-out), with two normalization sources crossed with four window hops. When the statistics came only from training subjects, pretraining raised macro-F1 by 0.078 to 0.227; when they came from the held-out user's full recording, the gain fell to between 0.020 and 0.050 and was no longer significant. Artifact supervision was far more useful than self-supervised pretraining on the same recordings (0.078 versus 0.008). Across 13 configurations in two datasets, the pretrained network was better in 12, but on the second dataset (26 subjects) per-user normalization increased the gain instead of reducing it, so the interaction depends on the data. Only five of 50 published WESAD studies state which data were used for normalization. Reporting this choice is necessary to separate first-use performance from performance after calibration.