pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.07198 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.ET

Beyond the Mean: Modelling Annotation Distributions in Continuous Affect Prediction

Kosmas Pinitas , Ilias Maglogiannis This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.ET
keywords Beta distributioncontinuous affect predictionannotation uncertaintydistribution modelingsubjective signalsmultimodal learningmoment matchingaffect annotation
0
0 comments X

The pith

By predicting Beta distribution parameters from mean and standard deviation, models can recover the full distribution of annotator ratings for continuous affect instead of just the average value.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper tries to establish that modeling the distribution of subjective annotations with Beta distributions improves continuous affect prediction by accounting for annotator variability. Instead of using only the mean rating as the target, the framework predicts the first two moments and uses moment matching to fit Beta parameters. This lets the model output not only the central tendency but also measures of spread, skewness, and quantiles in closed form. Evaluation on the SEWA and RECOLA datasets with multimodal features shows that these distributions align closely with actual annotator data and perform competitively against standard regression. A sympathetic reader cares because it preserves information about disagreement and uncertainty that is usually lost in point estimates.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a Beta distribution can effectively model the consensus in continuous affect annotations. Models are trained to predict the mean and standard deviation of the annotation distribution, which are then converted into the two shape parameters of the Beta distribution using moment matching. From these parameters, higher-order statistics such as skewness, kurtosis, and various quantiles can be computed directly without additional prediction. Experiments demonstrate that the resulting predictive distributions closely resemble the empirical distributions from annotators on the SEWA and RECOLA datasets, while the point predictions remain competitive with those from 1

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is moment matching, which derives the two Beta shape parameters from the predicted mean and variance of the annotation ratings to enable closed-form recovery of the full distribution properties.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same Beta modeling strategy could be tested on other subjective prediction tasks where multiple human labels are available.
  • Optimizing the model directly against distribution distances rather than moment matching might yield even better alignment.
  • Full distribution outputs could support more nuanced applications, such as identifying cases with high annotator disagreement for further review.

Load-bearing premise

That the distribution of annotator ratings in these tasks is adequately captured by a Beta distribution and that matching the mean and variance is sufficient to accurately determine the shape and higher moments.

What would settle it

Observing a substantial mismatch between the predicted Beta-derived quantiles and the actual empirical quantiles from annotator ratings on a new dataset would indicate the claim does not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07198 by Ilias Maglogiannis, Kosmas Pinitas.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Framework Overview: (a) annotator signals form a probabilistic consensus (µ, σ); (b) multimodal features are mapped to these parameters during training; (c) at test time, predicted (µ, σ) define a Beta distribution capturing annotation ambiguity. This mapping is valid under the conditions 0 < µ < 1, 0 < σ2 < µ(1−µ), α > 0, β > 0, (2) which ensure that (α, β) define a valid Beta distribution. In practice, s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Indicative true and predicted probability density func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Emotion annotation is inherently subjective and cognitively demanding, producing signals that reflect diverse perceptions across annotators rather than a single ground truth. In continuous affect prediction, this variability is typically collapsed into point estimates such as the mean or median, discarding valuable information about annotator disagreement and uncertainty. In this work, we propose a distribution-aware framework that models annotation consensus using the Beta distribution. Instead of predicting a single affect value, models estimate the mean and standard deviation of the annotation distribution, which are transformed into valid Beta parameters through moment matching. This formulation enables the recovery of higher-order distributional descriptors, including skewness, kurtosis, and quantiles, in closed form. As a result, the model captures not only the central tendency of emotional perception but also variability, asymmetry, and uncertainty in annotator responses. We evaluate the proposed approach on the SEWA and RECOLA datasets using multimodal features. Experimental results show that Beta-based modelling produces predictive distributions that closely match the empirical annotator distributions while achieving competitive performance with conventional regression approaches. These findings highlight the importance of modelling annotation uncertainty in affective computing and demonstrate the potential of distribution-aware learning for subjective signal analysis.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a distribution-aware framework for continuous affect prediction that models annotator consensus via the Beta distribution. Models predict the mean and standard deviation of the annotation distribution, which are converted to Beta parameters (α, β) through moment matching; this enables closed-form recovery of higher-order descriptors such as skewness, kurtosis, and quantiles. The approach is evaluated on the SEWA and RECOLA datasets using multimodal features, with the claim that the resulting predictive distributions closely match empirical annotator distributions while achieving competitive performance against conventional regression baselines.

Significance. If the empirical results hold, the work would be significant for affective computing by moving beyond point estimates (mean/median) to explicitly model annotation uncertainty and variability. The moment-matching formulation is lightweight and allows recovery of full distributional properties without requiring direct density estimation or more complex models, which could improve robustness in subjective signal tasks where annotator disagreement carries information.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'Beta-based modelling produces predictive distributions that closely match the empirical annotator distributions' is unsupported by any quantitative metrics (e.g., KL divergence, Wasserstein distance, quantile errors, or histogram comparisons) or figures; without these, the match to empirical distributions cannot be verified.
  2. [Method] Method (moment matching step): predicting only the first two moments and mapping them to Beta(α, β) fixes all higher-order statistics (skewness, kurtosis, quantiles) to the Beta family by construction. The central claim therefore rests on the untested assumption that SEWA/RECOLA annotation histograms are well-approximated by Beta shapes; no analysis of multimodality, tail behavior, or comparison against alternative families (e.g., truncated Gaussian, mixtures) is provided to substantiate this.
  3. [Experiments] Experimental results: no specific performance numbers, baseline details, or distribution-similarity scores are reported to support 'competitive performance with conventional regression approaches'; this prevents assessment of whether the distributional modeling incurs any accuracy cost on the mean or improves uncertainty quantification.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'multimodal features' without naming the modalities or feature extractors used on SEWA/RECOLA.
  2. [Method] Provide the explicit formulas and constraints (e.g., ensuring α, β > 0) for the moment-matching transformation from predicted μ and σ to Beta parameters.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and positive review, which highlights the potential significance of our distribution-aware framework for affective computing. We address each major comment point by point below, providing clarifications from the manuscript and committing to revisions that strengthen the presentation of results and justifications without altering the core contributions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'Beta-based modelling produces predictive distributions that closely match the empirical annotator distributions' is unsupported by any quantitative metrics (e.g., KL divergence, Wasserstein distance, quantile errors, or histogram comparisons) or figures; without these, the match to empirical distributions cannot be verified.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from more explicit quantitative backing to support the claim. The full manuscript evaluates the approach on SEWA and RECOLA using multimodal features and presents results indicating close matches via the recovered descriptors, but we acknowledge the need for direct metrics. In the revised version, we will add specific quantitative measures such as average KL divergence, Wasserstein distance, and quantile errors between predicted Beta distributions and empirical annotation histograms, along with additional figures for visual histogram comparisons. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Method] Method (moment matching step): predicting only the first two moments and mapping them to Beta(α, β) fixes all higher-order statistics (skewness, kurtosis, quantiles) to the Beta family by construction. The central claim therefore rests on the untested assumption that SEWA/RECOLA annotation histograms are well-approximated by Beta shapes; no analysis of multimodality, tail behavior, or comparison against alternative families (e.g., truncated Gaussian, mixtures) is provided to substantiate this.

    Authors: The Beta distribution is a natural choice for normalized continuous affect labels bounded in [0,1], as it flexibly models varying means, variances, and skewness with only two parameters while permitting closed-form recovery of higher-order statistics. The manuscript demonstrates empirical effectiveness on the target datasets through competitive performance and recovered descriptors. However, we accept that an explicit justification and sensitivity analysis would strengthen the work. In revision, we will add a subsection analyzing the empirical annotation distributions for multimodality and tail behavior, plus a brief comparison to alternatives such as truncated Gaussian to substantiate the modeling choice. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Experiments] Experimental results: no specific performance numbers, baseline details, or distribution-similarity scores are reported to support 'competitive performance with conventional regression approaches'; this prevents assessment of whether the distributional modeling incurs any accuracy cost on the mean or improves uncertainty quantification.

    Authors: The experiments section reports results on SEWA and RECOLA with multimodal features, comparing against conventional regression baselines and claiming competitive performance. We apologize if the numerical details were not sufficiently prominent. To address this directly, the revised manuscript will include expanded tables with specific performance numbers (e.g., CCC and MSE for mean prediction), baseline details, and distribution-similarity scores, explicitly showing that the proposed approach maintains mean accuracy while additionally providing uncertainty quantification via the full predictive distributions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; standard moment-matching procedure with independent empirical validation

full rationale

The paper's core procedure predicts mean and standard deviation from multimodal features using regression, then applies the standard Beta moment-matching formulas (alpha = mu * ((mu*(1-mu)/sigma^2) - 1), beta = (1-mu) * ((mu*(1-mu)/sigma^2) - 1)) to obtain parameters. Higher-order descriptors (skewness, kurtosis, quantiles) follow directly from the closed-form Beta expressions. This is a conventional statistical transformation, not a reduction of any claimed prediction to its own fitted inputs by construction. The assertion that the resulting distributions 'closely match the empirical annotator distributions' is presented as an empirical outcome on SEWA/RECOLA, not a definitional equivalence. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes from prior author work are invoked to justify the central modelling choice. The derivation chain remains self-contained and externally falsifiable via direct comparison to annotation histograms.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that Beta distributions suitably model bounded annotation scores and that moment matching preserves necessary distributional properties for higher-order recovery.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Annotation distributions in continuous affect tasks follow a Beta distribution
    Invoked to justify transformation of predicted mean and standard deviation into valid Beta parameters and subsequent recovery of skewness, kurtosis, and quantiles.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5500 in / 1185 out tokens · 44751 ms · 2026-05-10T17:22:32.892912+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Beta quantile regression for ro- bust estimation of uncertainty in the presence of outliers

    Haleh Akrami, Omar Zamzam, Anand Joshi, Sergul Ay- dore, and Richard Leahy. Beta quantile regression for ro- bust estimation of uncertainty in the presence of outliers. InICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7480–7484. IEEE, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Deep evidential regression.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:14927–14937, 2020

    Alexander Amini, Wilko Schwarting, Ava Soleimany, and Daniela Rus. Deep evidential regression.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:14927–14937, 2020. 2

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Emotion recognition in human-computer in- teraction.IEEE Signal processing magazine, 18(1):32–80,

    Roddy Cowie, Ellen Douglas-Cowie, Nicolas Tsapatsoulis, George V otsis, Stefanos Kollias, Winfried Fellenz, and John G Taylor. Emotion recognition in human-computer in- teraction.IEEE Signal processing magazine, 18(1):32–80,

    work page

  4. [4]

    An investigation of emotion pre- diction uncertainty using gaussian mixture regression

    Ting Dang, Vidhyasaharan Sethu, Julien Epps, and Eliathamby Ambikairajah. An investigation of emotion pre- diction uncertainty using gaussian mixture regression. InIN- TERSPEECH, pages 1248–1252, 2017. 2

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Predicting score distribution to improve non-intrusive speech quality estima- tion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06616, 2022

    Abu Zaher Md Faridee and Hannes Gamper. Predicting score distribution to improve non-intrusive speech quality estima- tion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06616, 2022. 2

    work page arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Strength modelling for real- world automatic continuous affect recognition from audiovi- sual signals.Image and Vision Computing, 65:76–86, 2017

    Jing Han, Zixing Zhang, Nicholas Cummins, Fabien Ringeval, and Bj ¨orn Schuller. Strength modelling for real- world automatic continuous affect recognition from audiovi- sual signals.Image and Vision Computing, 65:76–86, 2017. 2

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Affect analysis in-the-Wild: Valence-arousal, expressions, action units and a unified framework,

    Dimitrios Kollias and Stefanos Zafeiriou. Affect analysis in-the-wild: Valence-arousal, expressions, action units and a unified framework.arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.15792, 2021. 2

    work page arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Sewa db: A rich database for audio-visual emotion and sentiment re- search in the wild.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 43(3):1022–1040, 2019

    Jean Kossaifi, Robert Walecki, Yannis Panagakis, Jie Shen, Maximilian Schmitt, Fabien Ringeval, Jing Han, Vedhas Pandit, Antoine Toisoul, Bj ¨orn Schuller, et al. Sewa db: A rich database for audio-visual emotion and sentiment re- search in the wild.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 43(3):1022–1040, 2019. 2, 4

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    Mbnet: Mos prediction for synthe- sized speech with mean-bias network

    Yichong Leng, Xu Tan, Sheng Zhao, Frank Soong, Xiang- Yang Li, and Tao Qin. Mbnet: Mos prediction for synthe- sized speech with mean-bias network. InICASSP 2021-2021 8 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 391–395. IEEE, 2021. 2

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Deepmos: deep posterior mean-opinion-score of speech

    Xinyu Liang, Fredrik Cumlin, Christian Sch ¨uldt, and Saikat Chatterjee. Deepmos: deep posterior mean-opinion-score of speech. InProceedings of INTERSPEECH, pages 526–530,

    work page

  11. [11]

    Ai4work project: Human-centric digital twin approaches to trustworthy ai and robotics for improved working conditions in healthcare and education sectors

    Ilias Maglogiannis, Filimon Trastelis, Michael Kalogeropou- los, Arsalan Khan, Parisis Gallos, Andreas Menychtas, Christos Panagopoulos, Petros Papachristou, Najmul Islam, Annika Wolff, et al. Ai4work project: Human-centric digital twin approaches to trustworthy ai and robotics for improved working conditions in healthcare and education sectors. In Digita...

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    The invariant ground truth of affect

    Konstantinos Makantasis, Kosmas Pinitas, Antonios Liapis, and Georgios N Yannakakis. The invariant ground truth of affect. In2022 10th International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction Workshops and De- mos (ACIIW), pages 1–8. IEEE, 2022. 7

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    From the lab to the wild: Affect modeling via privileged information.IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 15(2):380–392, 2023

    Konstantinos Makantasis, Kosmas Pinitas, Antonios Liapis, and Georgios N Yannakakis. From the lab to the wild: Affect modeling via privileged information.IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 15(2):380–392, 2023. 4

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    Nicolaou, Hatice Gunes, and Maja Pantic

    Mihalis A. Nicolaou, Hatice Gunes, and Maja Pantic. Con- tinuous prediction of spontaneous affect from multiple cues and modalities in valence-arousal space.IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 2(2):92–105, 2011. 1

    work page 2011

  15. [15]

    Conformalized multimodal uncertainty regression and reasoning

    Domenico Parente, Nastaran Darabi, Alex C Stutts, Theja Tulabandhula, and Amit Ranjan Trivedi. Conformalized multimodal uncertainty regression and reasoning. InICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 6985–6989. IEEE, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Rosalind W Picard.Affective computing. 2000. 1

    work page 2000

  17. [17]

    Supervised contrastive learn- ing for affect modelling

    Kosmas Pinitas, Konstantinos Makantasis, Antonios Liapis, and Georgios N Yannakakis. Supervised contrastive learn- ing for affect modelling. InProceedings of the 2022 Inter- national Conference on Multimodal Interaction, pages 531– 539, 2022. 4

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Predicting player engagement in tom clancy’s the division 2: A multimodal approach via pix- els and gamepad actions

    Kosmas Pinitas, David Renaudie, Mike Thomsen, Matthew Barthet, Konstantinos Makantasis, Antonios Liapis, and Georgios N Yannakakis. Predicting player engagement in tom clancy’s the division 2: A multimodal approach via pix- els and gamepad actions. InProceedings of the 25th Inter- national Conference on Multimodal Interaction, pages 488– 497, 2023. 8

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Across-game engagement modelling via few- shot learning

    Kosmas Pinitas, Konstantinos Makantasis, and Georgios N Yannakakis. Across-game engagement modelling via few- shot learning. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 390–406. Springer, 2024. 8

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Varying the context to advance affect modelling: A study on game engagement prediction

    Kosmas Pinitas, Nemanja Rasajski, Matthew Barthet, Maria Kaselimi, Konstantinos Makantasis, Antonios Liapis, and Georgios N Yannakakis. Varying the context to advance affect modelling: A study on game engagement prediction. In2024 12th International Conference on Affective Comput- ing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII), pages 194–202. IEEE,

    work page

  21. [21]

    Privileged contrastive pretraining for multi- modal affect modelling

    Kosmas Pinitas, Konstantinos Makantasis, and Georgios Yannakakis. Privileged contrastive pretraining for multi- modal affect modelling. InProceedings of the 27th Inter- national Conference on Multimodal Interaction, pages 317– 325, 2025. 1

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    End-to-end label uncer- tainty modeling for speech-based arousal recognition using bayesian neural networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.03299,

    Navin Raj Prabhu, Guillaume Carbajal, Nale Lehmann- Willenbrock, and Timo Gerkmann. End-to-end label uncer- tainty modeling for speech-based arousal recognition using bayesian neural networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.03299,

    work page arXiv

  23. [23]

    Introducing the recola multimodal corpus of remote collaborative and affective interactions

    Fabien Ringeval, Andreas Sonderegger, J ¨urg Sauer, and De- nis Lalanne. Introducing the recola multimodal corpus of remote collaborative and affective interactions. In2013 10th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition, pages 1–8, 2013. 2, 4

    work page 2013

  24. [24]

    The inter- speech 2009 emotion challenge

    Bj ¨orn Schuller, Stefan Steidl, and Anton Batliner. The inter- speech 2009 emotion challenge. InINTERSPEECH, pages 312–315, 2009. 1

    work page 2009

  25. [25]

    Alexis D Souchet, St ´ephanie Philippe, Domitile Lourdeaux, and Laure Leroy. Measuring visual fatigue and cognitive load via eye tracking while learning with virtual reality head-mounted displays: A review.International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 38(9):801–824, 2022. 1

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    Yannakakis

    Jiaxin Wu, Mathieu Barthet, David Melhart, and Georgios N. Yannakakis. Emotions as ambiguity-aware ordinal represen- tations. InACII, 2025. arXiv:2508.19193. 2

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Estimating the uncertainty in emotion attributes using deep evidential regression.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.06760, 2023

    Wen Wu, Chao Zhang, and Philip C Woodland. Estimating the uncertainty in emotion attributes using deep evidential regression.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.06760, 2023. 2

    work page arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Eeg based emotion recognition by hierarchical bayesian spectral regression framework.Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 402:110015, 2024

    Lei Yang, Qi Tang, Zhaojin Chen, Shuhan Zhang, Yufeng Mu, Ye Yan, Peng Xu, Dezhong Yao, Fali Li, and Cunbo Li. Eeg based emotion recognition by hierarchical bayesian spectral regression framework.Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 402:110015, 2024. 2 9

    work page 2024