Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Emotion Recognition in Older Adults with Quantum Machine Learning and Wearable Sensors

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Quantum SVM beats classical models on emotion from wearables

desk verdict A useful new physiological dataset from older adults is undermined by test-set hyperparameter tuning and a central claim contradicted by the paper's own tables. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08175 v1 pith:M2W6VWXX submitted 2025-07-10 cs.LG cs.HCquant-ph

Md. Saif Hassan Onim , Travis S. Humble , Himanshu Thapliyal This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.HCquant-ph
keywords emotionrecognitionquantummachinelearningkernelsupportvectorwearablesensorsphysiologicalsignalsolderadultsprivacy-preserving
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that emotional states can be read from wrist-worn physiological signals alone, with no camera or facial imagery, using a hybrid quantum-classical machine learning model. On data from 39 older adults undergoing a stress protocol, the authors report that a support vector machine with a quantum kernel beats seven classical models across positive, negative, and neutral classes, with F1 scores reaching 0.905 for the positive class on only 640 training samples and recall gains up to 36 percent. The stated payoff is a privacy-preserving way to monitor emotional well-being in older adults and in clinical populations such as people with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias or veterans with PTSD, where speech and facial expression may be unreliable. The paper's significance, if the result holds, is that small physiological datasets can be handled by quantum kernels to produce accurate, unobtrusive affect sensing.

What carries the argument

The central carrying object is a fidelity-based quantum kernel. Each physiological sample is encoded by a circuit $U(x)$ that applies parameterized $SU(2)$ rotations to four qubits, with two classical features mapped per qubit, and then entangles neighboring qubits with CNOT gates; the similarity between two samples is the squared fidelity $k(x_i,x_j)=|\langle 0|U^\dagger(x_i)U(x_j)|0\rangle|^2$. This kernel matrix feeds a classical support vector machine, so the model is hybrid: the quantum circuit defines the geometry of the feature space, and classical optimization solves the margin problem. The kernel matrices are evaluated on a classical simulator, so the reported results do not depend on quantum hardware noise.

What would settle it

Re-annotate a random subset of the recorded faces with human FACS coding or participant self-report, retrain on the same physiological features, and re-run the 5-fold evaluation; if the quantum SVM's F1 scores against those labels fall to classical levels or to chance, the reported quantum advantage was an artifact of the automatic labeler.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a 4-qubit quantum kernel SVM, with data encoded through a feature map that places two classical features per qubit and entangles neighboring qubits, classifies emotion from wearable physiological data better than any of seven classical baselines. On a test set held out by participant, the quantum model achieves F1 scores of 0.851, 0.775, and 0.905 for negative, neutral, and positive emotion with only 640 training samples, improving to 0.872, 0.824, and 0.897 with 1,600 training samples; the best classical model, Random Forest, peaks at 0.685, 0.851, and 0.761 on the same 2,000-sample split. The authors interpret the result as evidence that quantum kernels can capture nonlinear correlations in physiological time series that classical kernels miss, and that emotion recognition need not rely on facial imagery at any point in the pipeline.

Load-bearing premise

The entire evaluation depends on the assumption that the automated facial expression analysis tool used for labeling gives correct emotion labels for these older adults; no self-report, clinical assessment, or human coding checks that assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the result holds, emotion monitoring in assisted-living and clinical settings can be done with wristbands alone, removing the privacy cost of cameras.
  • The reported performance at 640 training samples suggests quantum kernels can work on small, participant-limited datasets, which is the norm for clinical populations.
  • The 36 percent recall improvement implies fewer missed emotional events, which matters for detecting distress or agitation in people who cannot communicate verbally.
  • The approach is a stepping stone toward real-time cloud-based inference from wearable streams, assuming the kernel computation can be made fast enough.
  • The same pipeline, if extended beyond the three coarse classes, could provide finer-grained affect labels without changing the sensing hardware.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: Because the quantum kernel is evaluated on a classical simulator, the paper demonstrates an advantage of a particular feature map, not of quantum hardware; the same kernel on real hardware might behave differently due to noise.
  • Inference: A matched comparison that tunes classical RBF-SVM hyperparameters and feature preprocessing as extensively as the quantum kernel would clarify whether the 36 percent recall gain comes from the quantum feature map or from unequal tuning.
  • Inference: The practical value hinges on label validity; a re-labeling study with self-report or clinical ratings on a subset would test whether the reported accuracies transfer.
  • Inference: The same quantum kernel could be applied to other wearable affect datasets, such as stress or cognitive-load recordings, to see whether the advantage is specific to this labeling protocol.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a physiological-signal-only emotion recognition pipeline for older adults. Data from 39 participants under the Trier Social Stress Test are labeled as Neutral, Positive, or Negative using iMotions Facial Expression Analysis, and several classical classifiers are compared with a hybrid quantum-kernel SVM (4-qubit Belis feature map, simulated with Qiskit's AerSimulator). The authors report F1 scores in Tables IV and V and claim the quantum SVM outperforms classical baselines in every emotion class, with F1 scores over 80% and up to about 36% improvement in recall.

Significance. If the reported results held, the study would be a useful application of wearable sensing to an understudied population and would support privacy-preserving affect monitoring. The participant-level data split and the focus on older adults are commendable, and the kernel construction follows prior work. However, the central quantitative claim is not supported by the reported evaluation: hyperparameters were selected on the test set, and the paper's own tables contradict the 'all emotion categories' claim. As it stands, the contribution is an exploratory pipeline with unvalidated labels and a classically simulated quantum kernel, rather than a demonstration of quantum-enhanced emotion recognition.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-B3] The paper states that 'the values for these parameters were chosen based on the best-performing set on test data after multiple trials and errors.' This means the test set was used for model selection, so every accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 value in Tables IV and V is an optimistically biased estimate and is not a valid estimate of generalization. The central quantum-versus-classical comparison is therefore invalid: apparent advantages could arise from selection effects rather than from the quantum kernel. The evaluation must be redone with hyperparameters tuned on a validation split or via nested cross-validation, with the procedure reported explicitly.
  2. [Tables IV-V] The abstract and Section V claim that the quantum-enhanced SVM surpasses classical counterparts in classification performance across all emotion categories. This is contradicted by the paper's own numbers: Random Forest achieves a Neutral F1 of 0.851, while the quantum SVM achieves only 0.775 at train:640 and 0.824 at train:1600. The abstract's statement that 'F1 scores over all classes are over 80%' is also false for the 640-sample quantum model, whose Neutral F1 is 0.775. The headline conclusion therefore does not follow from the reported results.
  3. [Section III-A] The ground-truth labels are derived solely from iMotions Facial Expression Analysis, with no validation against self-report, clinical assessment, or human FACS coding. This is a serious threat to validity, especially for older adults, whose facial expressivity is often reduced. If the commercial FEA labels are noisy or biased for this population, the classifiers are trained to predict an invalid target, and all reported F1 scores are conditional on that target. At minimum, a small human-coded validation subset or an explicit label-noise analysis is needed before the emotion-recognition claims can be interpreted.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Index Terms] The index terms ('stress prediction, RNN, LSTM, cortisol, wearables') do not match the paper's content and should be replaced with terms reflecting emotion recognition, quantum kernels, and wearable physiological sensing.
  2. [Table V] The header 'train: 1600; test: 4000' appears to be a typo for test: 400, since 2000 samples with an 80/20 split would give 400 test samples. Please clarify the sample-count notation throughout.
  3. [Section IV] The claim of 'around a maximum of 36% increase in the recall values' is not tied to a specific table entry. Using Tables IV and V, the recall gains over Random Forest are approximately 39.6% relative for Negative, 30.5% for Positive, and 9.6% for Neutral at train:1600; the exact comparison should be stated.
  4. [Section III-B3] The quantum kernel is evaluated with a classical statevector simulation (AerSimulator), so the phrase 'quantum-enhanced' should be qualified; the results are a classical simulation of a quantum kernel, not a demonstration on quantum hardware.
  5. [Table II] The baseline values for Joy and Positive are identical, as are those for Anger and Negative, and the thresholding procedure ('outside 1st standard deviation') is not fully explained. Please clarify how the three emotion classes are aggregated from the FEA outputs and how the threshold is applied.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Reported QML-vs-classical test performance is selected, not predicted: hyperparameters were tuned on the test set.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III-B3, 'Model Training and Testing'; Tables IV and V]
    "The values for these parameters were chosen based on the best-performing set on test data after multiple trials and errors."

    The paper tunes the hyperparameters of every model using the test set, then reports the resulting test-set F1/recall numbers (Tables IV and V) as the performance of the framework. Because the test set was itself the selection criterion, these numbers are maxima over the hyperparameter search rather than out-of-sample predictions. The central claim that the quantum-enhanced SVM 'surpasses classical counterparts in classification performance across all emotion categories' therefore reduces to a comparison of test-selected configurations, not a comparison of fixed models predicting held-out data. The evaluation is partly fit to the outcome by the paper's own description.

full rationale

The load-bearing circular step is the test-set hyperparameter selection in Section III-B3: the paper explicitly chooses parameter values based on 'the best-performing set on test data' and then presents the same test-set scores as evidence of generalization. That makes the reported performance a fitted selection rather than an independent prediction. The quantum feature map and fidelity kernel are adopted from external prior work (Belis et al.), not derived from the authors' own results, so no equation reduces to a fitted constant. Self-citations [1], [4], [7] are background motivation and not load-bearing. Separately, the paper's own tables contradict the abstract's 'across all emotion categories' claim (quantum Neutral F1 = 0.775/0.824 vs Random Forest Neutral F1 = 0.851), but that is a correctness issue, not circularity, and does not affect this score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The work relies on a commercial facial-expression labeler, a standard stress protocol, a known quantum feature map, and a set of model hyperparameters that were tuned on the test set.

free parameters (4)
  • Model hyperparameters (e.g., RF n_estimators=100, KNN k=3, SVM C, quantum feature map depth) = not fully specified; chosen on test data
    Section III-B3 states hyperparameters were chosen based on the best-performing set on test data after multiple trials and errors; this is a free choice that compromises the evaluation.
  • 60-sample moving average window = 60 samples
    Used for preprocessing in Section III-A; chosen without sensitivity analysis.
  • Number of qubits in quantum kernel = 4
    Set in the quantum kernel (Table III); no justification is given for this choice.
  • Emotion intensity threshold (outside 1st standard deviation) = 1 standard deviation
    Table II defines positive/negative/neutral based on samples outside/inside 1 standard deviation of the expression intensity; this binarization choice affects the labels and is not varied.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption iMotion FEA produces valid emotion ground truth for older adults.
    Section III-A uses FEA to label all training data; no external validation is provided for this population.
  • domain assumption Physiological signals are correctly synchronized with facial-expression labels.
    Section II says data were synchronized after each session, but exact alignment procedures are not described.
  • domain assumption The TSST protocol induces the intended stress and emotion responses in this population.
    TSST is known for stress induction, but the paper assumes it yields the three target emotion classes in older adults.
  • standard math The Belis et al. feature map produces a valid positive-definite kernel.
    Adopted from prior work [30]; the fidelity kernel is known to be symmetric and positive semi-definite (Eq. 1).
  • domain assumption Splitting by participant prevents data leakage during normalization and cross-validation.
    Stated in Section III-A, but the test-set hyperparameter tuning reintroduces leakage into the evaluation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emotion Recognition in Older Adults with Quantum Machine Learning and Wearable Sensors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M2W6VWXX

@misc{pith2026250708175,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emotion Recognition in Older Adults with Quantum Machine Learning and Wearable Sensors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M2W6VWXX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08175}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the feasibility of inferring emotional states exclusively from physiological signals, thereby presenting a privacy-preserving alternative to conventional facial recognition techniques. We conduct a performance comparison of classical machine learning algorithms and hybrid quantum machine learning (QML) methods with a quantum kernel-based model. Our results indicate that the quantum-enhanced SVM surpasses classical counterparts in classification performance across all emotion categories, even when trained on limited datasets. The F1 scores over all classes are over 80% with around a maximum of 36% improvement in the recall values. The integration of wearable sensor data with quantum machine learning not only enhances accuracy and robustness but also facilitates unobtrusive emotion recognition. This methodology holds promise for populations with impaired communication abilities, such as individuals with Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD) and veterans with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The findings establish an early foundation for passive emotional monitoring in clinical and assisted living conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08175 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Stimulus Protocol TSST for Capturing Facial Emotion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Proposed Emotion Detection Method For that specific emotion class, samples outside of the first standard deviation are indicated as 0, while those inside are marked as 1. In this work, we plan to detect only 3 sets of emotions: Positive, Negative and Neutral as a part of multiclass classification problem where one emotion are assumed to be triggered separately from others. B. Hybrid Quantum Machine Learning Model To… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Data encoding circuit U(x), for a data point x, that implements the feature map of the kernel. Here G(θ, ϕ, λ) are 1 qubit gates and the entanglement gates correspond to CNOT gates 1) Data Encoding: We used a quantum feature map that encodes two classical features per qubit initially proposed by Belis et al. [30]. This maximizes information density while minimizing circuit depth. For each input vector x, the quantum… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Utilization of wearable devices as means for remote digital biometric data collection in a community-based, rural random- ized controlled trial among alzheimer’s disease dyads,

    E. K. Rhodus, M. S. H. Onim, C. Roberts, S. Kumar, A. M. Burhan, and H. Thapliyal, “Utilization of wearable devices as means for remote digital biometric data collection in a community-based, rural random- ized controlled trial among alzheimer’s disease dyads,” Alzheimer’s & Dementia, vol. 20, p. e090883, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Advancing secure and privacy-preserved decision-making in iot-enabled consumer electronics via multimodal data fusion,

    I. U. Din, A. Almogren, J. J. Rodrigues, and A. Altameem, “Advancing secure and privacy-preserved decision-making in iot-enabled consumer electronics via multimodal data fusion,” IEEE Transactions on Con- sumer Electronics, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    A novel multimodal system to predict agitation in people with dementia within clinical settings: A proof of concept,

    A. Badawi, S. Elmoghazy, S. Choudhury, S. Elgazzar, K. Elgazzar, and A. Burhan, “A novel multimodal system to predict agitation in people with dementia within clinical settings: A proof of concept,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.08882, 2024. TABLE IV: Performance of Classical ML Models for 2000 Samples (avg of 5 folds) ML Algorithm Negative Neutral Positive A...

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    A review of context-aware machine learning for stress detection,

    M. S. H. Onim, E. Rhodus, and H. Thapliyal, “A review of context-aware machine learning for stress detection,” IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Cognitive training and stress detection in mci frail older people through wearable sensors and machine learning,

    F. Delmastro, F. Di Martino, and C. Dolciotti, “Cognitive training and stress detection in mci frail older people through wearable sensors and machine learning,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 65 573–65 590, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Utilizing a wristband sensor to measure the stress level for people with dementia,

    B. Kikhia, T. G. Stavropoulos, S. Andreadis, N. Karvonen, I. Kompat- siaris, S. S ¨avenstedt, M. Pijl, and C. Melander, “Utilizing a wristband sensor to measure the stress level for people with dementia,” Sensors, vol. 16, no. 12, p. 1989, 2016

    work page 1989

  7. [7]

    Utilizing machine learning for context-aware digital biomarker of stress in older adults,

    M. S. H. Onim, H. Thapliyal, and E. K. Rhodus, “Utilizing machine learning for context-aware digital biomarker of stress in older adults,” Information, vol. 15, no. 5, p. 274, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Sensing physiological change and mental stress in older adults from hot weather,

    S.-M. Cheong, C. Bautista, and L. Ortiz, “Sensing physiological change and mental stress in older adults from hot weather,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 70 171–70 181, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Assessing real-time cognitive load based on psycho- physiological measures for younger and older adults,

    E. Ferreira, D. Ferreira, S. Kim, P. Siirtola, J. R ¨oning, J. F. Forlizzi, and A. K. Dey, “Assessing real-time cognitive load based on psycho- physiological measures for younger and older adults,” in 2014 IEEE Symp. on Computational Intelligence, Cognitive Algorithms, Mind, a...

    2014

  2. [10]

    Corrnet: Fine-grained emotion recognition for video watching using wearable physiological sensors,

    T. Zhang, A. El Ali, C. Wang, A. Hanjalic, and P. Cesar, “Corrnet: Fine-grained emotion recognition for video watching using wearable physiological sensors,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 1, p. 52, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Wearable emotion recognition using heart rate data from a smart bracelet,

    L. Shu, Y . Yu, W. Chen, H. Hua, Q. Li, J. Jin, and X. Xu, “Wearable emotion recognition using heart rate data from a smart bracelet,” Sensors, vol. 20, no. 3, p. 718, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Fear recognition for women using a reduced set of physiological signals,

    J. A. Miranda, M. F. Canabal, L. Gutierrez-Martin, J. M. Lanza- Gutierrez, M. Portela-Garcia, and C. Lopez-Ongil, “Fear recognition for women using a reduced set of physiological signals,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 5, p. 1587, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Emotion recognition based on skin potential signals with a portable wireless device,

    S. Chen, K. Jiang, H. Hu, H. Kuang, J. Yang, J. Luo, X. Chen, and Y . Li, “Emotion recognition based on skin potential signals with a portable wireless device,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 3, p. 1018, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Quantum- inspired neural network for conversational emotion recognition,

    Q. Li, D. Gkoumas, A. Sordoni, J.-Y . Nie, and M. Melucci, “Quantum- inspired neural network for conversational emotion recognition,” Pro- ceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 35, no. 15, pp. 13 270–13 278, May 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Emotion quantification using variational quantum state fidelity estimation,

    J. Singh, F. Ali, B. Shah, K. S. Bhangu, and D. Kwak, “Emotion quantification using variational quantum state fidelity estimation,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 115 108–115 119, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    QAP: A quantum-inspired adaptive-priority-learning model for multimodal emo- tion recognition,

    Z. Li, Y . Zhou, Y . Liu, F. Zhu, C. Yang, and S. Hu, “QAP: A quantum-inspired adaptive-priority-learning model for multimodal emo- tion recognition,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 , A. Rogers, J. Boyd-Graber, and N. Okazaki, Eds. Toron...

    2023

  9. [17]

    A wearable bte-eeg embedded device for emotion monitoring with quantum machine learning,

    N.-D. Mai, H. Barki, and W.-Y . Chung, “A wearable bte-eeg embedded device for emotion monitoring with quantum machine learning,” in 2024 Tenth International Conference on Communications and Electronics (ICCE), 2024, pp. 562–566

    2024

  10. [18]

    A quantum probability driven frame- work for joint multi-modal sarcasm, sentiment and emotion analysis,

    Y . Liu, Y . Zhang, and D. Song, “A quantum probability driven frame- work for joint multi-modal sarcasm, sentiment and emotion analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 326–341, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Quantum-based deep learning method for recognition of facial expressions,

    R. Golchha, M. Sahu, and V . Bhateja, “Quantum-based deep learning method for recognition of facial expressions,” Neural Computing and Applications, mar 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    Quantum neural networks for multimodal sentiment, emotion, and sarcasm analysis,

    J. Singh, K. S. Bhangu, A. Alkhanifer, A. A. AlZubi, and F. Ali, “Quantum neural networks for multimodal sentiment, emotion, and sarcasm analysis,” Alexandria Engineering Journal , vol. 124, pp. 170– 187, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Emognition dataset: emotion recognition with self-reports, facial expressions, and physiology using wearables,

    S. Saganowski, J. Komoszy ´nska, M. Behnke, B. Perz, D. Kunc, B. Klich, Ł. D. Kaczmarek, and P. Kazienko, “Emognition dataset: emotion recognition with self-reports, facial expressions, and physiology using wearables,” Scientific data, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 158, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Introducing wesad, a multimodal dataset for wearable stress and affect detection,

    P. Schmidt, A. Reiss, R. Duerichen, C. Marberger, and K. Van Laer- hoven, “Introducing wesad, a multimodal dataset for wearable stress and affect detection,” in Proceedings of the 20th ACM international conference on multimodal interaction , 2018, pp. 400–408

    2018

  15. [23]

    A survey of emotion recognition using physiological signal in wearable devices,

    H. Z. Wijasena, R. Ferdiana, and S. Wibirama, “A survey of emotion recognition using physiological signal in wearable devices,” in Interna- tional Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Mechatronics Systems . IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–6

    2021

  16. [24]

    Measuring emotions in education using wearable devices: A systematic review,

    S. Ba and X. Hu, “Measuring emotions in education using wearable devices: A systematic review,” Computers & Education , vol. 200, p. 104797, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Hybrid quantum deep learning model for emotion detection using raw eeg signal analysis,

    A. A. Chandanwala, S. Bhowmik, P. Chaudhury, and S. C. Pravin, “Hybrid quantum deep learning model for emotion detection using raw eeg signal analysis,” 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Gesture and emotion detection using quantum computing for enhanced recognition and analysis,

    S. Suraj Jai Krishna, M. Anish, A. M. Posonia, J. Albert Mayan, and P. Asha, “Gesture and emotion detection using quantum computing for enhanced recognition and analysis,” in 2024 International Conference on Expert Clouds and Applications (ICOECA) , 2024, pp. 530–535

    2024

  19. [27]

    Facial emotion recognition using deep quantum and advanced transfer learning mechanism,

    S. Alsubai, A. Alqahtani, A. Alanazi, M. Sha, and A. Gumaei, “Facial emotion recognition using deep quantum and advanced transfer learning mechanism,” Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, vol. V olume 18 - 2024, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    The trier social stress test protocol for inducing psy- chological stress,

    M. A. Birkett, “The trier social stress test protocol for inducing psy- chological stress,” JoVE (Journal of Visualized Experiments) , no. 56, p. e3238, 2011

    2011

  21. [29]

    Facial expression analysis (fea),

    iMotions A/S, “Facial expression analysis (fea),” 2024, accessed: 2025- 03-22. [Online]. Available: https://imotions.com/blog/publications/

    2024

  22. [30]

    Quantum anomaly detection in the latent space of proton collision events at the lhc,

    V . Belis, K. A. Wo´zniak, and E. Puljak, “Quantum anomaly detection in the latent space of proton collision events at the lhc,” Communications Physics, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 334, Oct 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.