Fuzzy-aware Loss for Source-free Domain Adaptation in Visual Emotion Recognition

Lap-Pui Chau; Ying Zheng; Yi Wang; Yiyi Zhang

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 64 references

Fuzzy-aware Loss for Source-free Domain Adaptation in Visual Emotion Recognition

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes a fuzzy-aware loss (FAL) for source-free domain adaptation in visual emotion recognition, claiming it outperforms eight SFDA methods and eight loss functions on 26 sub-tasks and is robust to noisy pseudo-labels by a…

desk verdict FAL is a solid empirical baseline for the new SFDA-VER setting, but the proof of noise robustness is invalid at a load-bearing step. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15519 v1 pith:JCOA7CIQ submitted 2025-01-26 cs.CV cs.LG

Ying Zheng , Yiyi Zhang , Yi Wang , Lap-Pui Chau This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CVcs.LG

keywords source-freedomainadaptationvisualemotionrecognitionfuzzy-awarelossnoisypseudo-labelsnoise-robustcrossentropy

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

Source-free domain adaptation for visual emotion recognition means adapting a trained emotion classifier to a new image distribution without any access to the source data or target labels. The paper argues that the two obstacles specific to emotion data—subjective labels and unreliable pseudo-labels—both produce 'fuzzy' supervision that standard cross-entropy handles poorly, because it only trusts the single predicted class. To fix this, it introduces the fuzzy-aware loss (FAL), which adds a term that also down-weights the model's overconfidence in non-predicted classes, so uncertain or wrong pseudo-labels cannot dominate training. The paper proves that this extra term is bounded and that, under a "clean-labels-dominant" assumption, FAL's risk under noisy pseudo-labels stays within a bounded distance of its clean-label risk. Across 26 domain-adaptation sub-tasks on sentiment, emotion, and Office-Home benchmarks, FAL reports the best accuracy on the emotion tasks and accuracy comparable to the best compared methods on Office-Home.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the fuzzy-aware loss itself, $\ell_{\mathrm{fal}} = -\sum_i w_i[(1-p_i)q_i + p_i]\log p_i$, where $p_i$ is the softmax probability for class $i$, $q_i$ is the one-hot pseudo-label, and $w_i$ is a memory-bank class-balance weight. Its fuzzy term $-\sum_{i \neq \hat{y}} p_i \log p_i$ applies the entropy weight $p_i$ to every non-predicted class, so the loss calibrates exactly the categories the model is unsure about. The theoretical machinery is the boundedness of $g(p) = -p\log p$ on $(0,1)$, whose maximum is $e^{-1}$, making the fuzzy term uniformly bounded by $(K-1)e^{-1}$ and yielding the finite gap $C_K$ in Theorem 1.

What would settle it

Run the source model on a small labeled probe of the target domain, build the per-class confusion matrix, and check whether every true class satisfies $\eta_{yi} < 1-\eta_y$ for all wrong classes $i$; then compare FAL against plain cross-entropy only on categories that violate this condition. If FAL still improves those categories, the theorem's premise is not the operative explanation for its gains, and if it fails exactly there, the premise is doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single, hyperparameter-free modification of cross entropy—$\ell_{\mathrm{fal}} = -\sum_i w_i[(1-p_i)q_i + p_i]\log p_i$—is enough to make source-free adaptation of visual emotion classifiers robust to fuzzy labels. The first term is focal loss with $\gamma=1$, and the second is a reverse-cross-entropy-like penalty over non-predicted classes, bounded by $(K-1)e^{-1}$. The paper derives Theorem 1: under asymmetric class-dependent label noise satisfying $\eta_{yi} < 1-\eta_y$ for every $i \neq y$, the difference between the noisy-risk minimizer and the clean-risk minimizer is at most $C_K = K(K-1)e^{-1}\mathbb{E}_{x,y}(1-\eta_y)$, so the minimizer learned from noisy pseudo-labels is approximately the clean minimizer. Empirically, FAL improves average accuracy over the source model by 3.5 points on the 2-class sentiment tasks, by 3.0 and 6.8 points on the two 8-class emotion tasks, and the enhanced FAL++ matches the best compared SFDA methods on Office-Home.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the target pseudo-labels are clean-labels-dominant—for every sample the source model assigns the true class a higher probability than any single wrong class—and, within the proof, that a clean-label minimizer is maximally uncertain on all wrong classes; the authors concede the first may fail for some categories in some tasks, and the second is an assumption about the minimizer rather than a demonstrated property.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Adding FAL to an existing source-free adaptation pipeline requires no new hyperparameters and no source data, so it can be dropped into deployed emotion-recognition models that must adapt under privacy constraints.
Because FAL reduces to a cross-entropy term plus a bounded entropy term, it should make adaptation stable when pseudo-label accuracy is low, which the paper shows happens for several emotion categories in the EmoSet-to-FI tasks.
If the reported gains hold, a loss-function-only approach becomes a stronger default for visual emotion adaptation than full SFDA methods, since eight compared SFDA methods often underperform the unadapted source model on emotion data.
FAL++'s near-best result on Office-Home suggests the loss is not emotion-specific and could generalize to other source-free adaptation settings where pseudo-labels are noisy.

Reading between the lines

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

This reader's inference: because FAL's robustness bound depends on per-category diagonal dominance, a practical deployment should first compute the source model's confusion matrix on a small labeled target probe and apply the fuzzy term only where the assumption holds; otherwise Theorem 1 gives no guarantee.
A testable extension the authors do not explore is applying FAL to multilabel or ordinal emotion settings, where several emotions can coexist; the soft weighting over non-predicted classes could then be interpreted as a soft label distribution rather than a noise correction.
The memory-bank weights $w_i$ track the evolving target class distribution, so one could test whether replacing hard argmax pseudo-labels with soft pseudo-label distributions changes the loss's sensitivity to the bound $C_K$.
Because FAL's fuzzy term is capped by $(K-1)e^{-1}$, its gradient is bounded; this suggests the loss may act like implicit gradient clipping, which could explain training stability independently of the noise-tolerance theorem.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the empirical study is a real contribution to a niche task; the theoretical claim does not hold up.

The genuinely new part is the SFDA-VER evaluation, not the loss. Eq. (19) shows FAL is focal loss with gamma=1 plus an entropy-like term, and the authors acknowledge this themselves, which is honest. Running 16 methods and loss functions across 26 tasks and finding that standard SFDA methods often hurt while noise-robust losses help is a useful data point for anyone working on adaptation in affective computing. The loss is hyperparameter-free and the ablation is clean: the focal term does most of the work, the entropy term adds a little, the class weights add almost nothing.

The stated theoretical contribution has a genuine flaw. At Eq. (17) the authors claim that a minimizer f* of the clean risk must sit at the upper bound on every wrong class. That is backwards: a clean-risk minimizer is a confident classifier, so it drives wrong-class probabilities to zero and ell_ft(f*, i) sits at the lower bound. It is also infeasible: for K=8, (K-1)e^{-1} is unreachable on a simplex. The inequality in Eq. (17) has the wrong sign, so Theorem 1 is not proven. Two subtler issues compound it: the theorem analyzes ell_ft = -sum_{i != yhat} p_i log p_i, which is not exactly the entropy term in the actual loss, and Assumption 1 is conceded by the authors to fail in some tasks, with Table II showing categories near 26% accuracy where clean-label dominance plausibly fails.

None of this kills the empirical result. Gains over the best baseline are modest (a few points on 2-class, up to 6.8 points on the 8-class tasks), and there are no error bars or code, so the margin is not guaranteed. But the results are consistent across the ablation and the Office-Home comparison, and the paper does not oversell the loss as a general fix.

Who should read it: people working on SFDA-VER or on loss functions for label noise in domain adaptation. The benchmark results and the simple baseline are worth having. The theory section should be reframed as a boundedness observation with the robustness claim removed, or repaired; it cannot stand as written.

My call: accept for peer review on the strength of the empirical study, with the theory flagged for major revision.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Fuzzy-aware Loss (FAL), a modified cross-entropy loss for source-free domain adaptation in visual emotion recognition (SFDA-VER). FAL adds a term that adjusts losses of non-predicted categories, based on the observation that emotion pseudo-labels are often noisy. The authors claim a theoretical noise-tolerance guarantee for FAL and report experiments on 2-class sentiment, 8-class emotion, and Office-Home object recognition, totaling 26 domain adaptation sub-tasks.

Significance. If validated, FAL would be a simple, hyperparameter-free loss that improves SFDA-VER, a task for which existing SFDA methods perform poorly. The empirical breadth is a strength: 26 sub-tasks across three benchmarks, and the connection to focal loss and reverse cross entropy is instructive. However, the theoretical robustness proof contains a critical logical error, so the paper's central theoretical contribution is not currently established. The empirical results are promising but reported without error bars, and margins over strong baselines are modest in several settings.

major comments (3)

[Section III-D, Eq. (17)] The proof of Theorem 1 is invalid. The claim that a clean-risk minimizer f* makes ℓ_ft(f*(x), i) equal to the upper bound b+ for all i ≠ y is the opposite of what minimizing R(f) entails. A minimizer of the clean risk should concentrate probability on the true class y, driving ℓ_ft(f*(x), i) for i ≠ y toward its lower bound (0), not toward (K−1)e^{−1}. Consequently, the inequality E_{x,y} Σ_{i≠y} φ_i(ℓ_ft(f~, i) − ℓ_ft(f*, i)) ≤ 0 is unjustified, and the bound in Theorem 1 does not follow.
[Section III-D, Assumption 1] The noise-tolerance result depends entirely on Assumption 1 (clean-labels-dominance), which the authors themselves concede 'may not hold for each category in every task' (Section III-D). The authors do not verify this assumption for the specific experimental settings, so even a correct proof under Assumption 1 would not establish robustness for the actual tasks in which FAL is evaluated. The paper offers no alternative explanation for why FAL improves accuracy when the assumption fails.
[Section IV, Tables IV–VI] The empirical results are reported without error bars or statistical significance tests. The average improvements over the strongest baselines are modest in some settings (e.g., 74.5 vs. 73.7 on the 2-class sentiment tasks; FAL++ at 73.4 vs. C-SFDA at 73.5 on Office-Home). Given this, the claim that FAL achieves state-of-the-art accuracy is not fully supported without information about run-to-run variance.

minor comments (4)

[Page 1 header] The running header contains a typo: 'FUZZY-AW ARE LOSS' should read 'FUZZY-AWARE LOSS'.
[Section III-D, Eq. (13)] The expectation chain in Eq. (13) appears to contain a typo: 'E_x E_ŷ|x E_ŷ|x,y' should likely be 'E_x E_y|x E_ŷ|x,y'.
[Section III-D, Assumption 1] The notation η_y is confusing: it is defined as the sum of off-diagonal noise probabilities, but then 1−η_y is used as the probability of the correct label; explicitly defining η_yy would improve clarity.
[Section III-C] The motivation for setting λ_i = p_i is heuristic; a more explicit explanation of why this particular choice addresses 'fuzzy' labels would strengthen the presentation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FAL is a new loss with held-out evaluation; the theorem's proof gap is a correctness concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central contribution is a loss function, FAL, constructed by replacing the one-hot coefficient in the cross-entropy loss with the model's own probability p_i (Eq. 5) and then adding class-frequency weights (Eq. 8). This is a design choice rather than a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction; no reported accuracy is produced by plugging the method's own output back into its objective. The empirical evaluation compares FAL on held-out target domains against published baselines, so the main empirical claim is not forced by construction. The theoretical robustness claim (Theorem 1) is conditional on Assumption 1 and is an attempt to prove noise tolerance; the proof cites external results ([15], [51]) and does not rely on the present authors' prior work. The admitted limitation that Assumption 1 'may not hold for each category in every task' (Section III-D) is a caveat on the theorem's applicability, not a circular step. The explicit connection of FAL to focal loss and reverse cross entropy (Section III-E) is presented as interpretation, not as evidence of novelty. There are no self-citations carrying the argument. The proof gap at Eq. (17), where the clean-risk minimizer is assumed to attain the unconstrained upper bound of the fuzzy-aware term on all wrong classes simultaneously, is a serious correctness concern but not a circularity concern: it does not make the theorem's conclusion equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two ad hoc design choices (λ_i=p_i and inverse-frequency weighting) and on the clean-labels-dominance assumption. There are no free numeric hyperparameters, but the functional form of the loss is not derived from first principles. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

λ_i (non-predicted class coefficient) = p_i (set to predicted probability)
Chosen by hand in Eq. (4) to make the loss bounded; motivated only by an information-theoretic analogy, with no derivation or fitted value.
w_i (class-balance weights) = M/n_i from memory bank
Inverse-frequency weights computed from target predictions stored in a memory bank (Eq. 6-8); a heuristic with no theoretical justification, though not optimized on test data.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Assumption 1: clean-labels-dominance, η_yi < 1 - η_y for all i≠y
Load-bearing premise for Theorem 1; the authors note it may not hold in every task (Section III-D).
domain assumption The source model's confusion matrix is diagonal-dominant
Empirical observation in Fig. 1 used to motivate Assumption 1; not guaranteed for arbitrary source-target pairs.
standard math Risk decomposition under asymmetric label noise from Wang et al. [15] and Wei et al. [51]
Borrowed proof framework for Theorem 1; accepted as background.
standard math Boundedness of -p log p on (0,1)
Used in the boundedness analysis; proven by elementary calculus.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fuzzy-aware Loss for Source-free Domain Adaptation in Visual Emotion Recognition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JCOA7CIQ

@misc{pith2026250115519,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fuzzy-aware Loss for Source-free Domain Adaptation in Visual Emotion Recognition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JCOA7CIQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15519}
}

read the original abstract

Source-free domain adaptation in visual emotion recognition (SFDA-VER) is a highly challenging task that requires adapting VER models to the target domain without relying on source data, which is of great significance for data privacy protection. However, due to the unignorable disparities between visual emotion data and traditional image classification data, existing SFDA methods perform poorly on this task. In this paper, we investigate the SFDA-VER task from a fuzzy perspective and identify two key issues: fuzzy emotion labels and fuzzy pseudo-labels. These issues arise from the inherent uncertainty of emotion annotations and the potential mispredictions in pseudo-labels. To address these issues, we propose a novel fuzzy-aware loss (FAL) to enable the VER model to better learn and adapt to new domains under fuzzy labels. Specifically, FAL modifies the standard cross entropy loss and focuses on adjusting the losses of non-predicted categories, which prevents a large number of uncertain or incorrect predictions from overwhelming the VER model during adaptation. In addition, we provide a theoretical analysis of FAL and prove its robustness in handling the noise in generated pseudo-labels. Extensive experiments on 26 domain adaptation sub-tasks across three benchmark datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15519 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Visualization of feature representations learned by the source model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

[1]

Affective image content analysis: Two decades review and new perspectives,

S. Zhao, X. Yao, J. Yang, G. Jia, G. Ding, T.-S. Chua, B. W. Schuller, and K. Keutzer, “Affective image content analysis: Two decades review and new perspectives,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 6729–6751, 2021

work page 2021
[2]

A fuzzy neural network enabled deep subspace domain adaptive fusion approaches for facial expression recognition,

W. Shu, F. Zhang, and R. Wan, “A fuzzy neural network enabled deep subspace domain adaptive fusion approaches for facial expression recognition,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems , 2024

work page 2024
[3]

Fmfn: A fuzzy multimodal fusion network for emotion recognition in ensemble conducting,

X. Han, F. Chen, and J. Ban, “Fmfn: A fuzzy multimodal fusion network for emotion recognition in ensemble conducting,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2024

work page 2024
[4]

A fuzzy deep neural network with sparse autoencoder for emotional intention understanding in human–robot interaction,

L. Chen, W. Su, M. Wu, W. Pedrycz, and K. Hirota, “A fuzzy deep neural network with sparse autoencoder for emotional intention understanding in human–robot interaction,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy systems , vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 1252–1264, 2020

work page 2020
[5]

A survey of embodied learning for object-centric robotic manipulation,

Y . Zheng, L. Yao, Y . Su, Y . Zhang, Y . Wang, S. Zhao, Y . Zhang, and L.-P. Chau, “A survey of embodied learning for object-centric robotic manipulation,” Machine Intelligence Research, 2025

work page 2025
[6]

Affective image classification using features inspired by psychology and art theory,

J. Machajdik and A. Hanbury, “Affective image classification using features inspired by psychology and art theory,” in ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2010, pp. 83–92

work page 2010
[7]

Sketch- specific data augmentation for freehand sketch recognition,

Y . Zheng, H. Yao, X. Sun, S. Zhang, S. Zhao, and F. Porikli, “Sketch- specific data augmentation for freehand sketch recognition,” Neurocom- puting, vol. 456, pp. 528–539, 2021

work page 2021
[8]

Multi-source domain adaptation for visual sentiment classification,

C. Lin, S. Zhao, L. Meng, and T.-S. Chua, “Multi-source domain adaptation for visual sentiment classification,” in AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 34, no. 03, 2020, pp. 2661–2668

work page 2020

Show all 64 references

[9]

A comprehensive survey on source-free domain adaptation,

J. Li, Z. Yu, Z. Du, L. Zhu, and H. T. Shen, “A comprehensive survey on source-free domain adaptation,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 2024

2024
[10]

Robust image sentiment analysis using progressively trained and domain transferred deep networks,

Q. You, J. Luo, H. Jin, and J. Yang, “Robust image sentiment analysis using progressively trained and domain transferred deep networks,” in AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 29, no. 1, 2015

2015
[11]

Image sentiment analysis using latent correlations among visual, textual, and sentiment views,

M. Katsurai and S. Satoh, “Image sentiment analysis using latent correlations among visual, textual, and sentiment views,” in IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing , 2016, pp. 2837–2841

2016
[12]

Emoset: A large-scale visual emotion dataset with rich attributes,

J. Yang, Q. Huang, T. Ding, D. Lischinski, D. Cohen-Or, and H. Huang, “Emoset: A large-scale visual emotion dataset with rich attributes,” in IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 20 383–20 394

2023
[13]

Building a large scale dataset for image emotion recognition: The fine print and the benchmark,

Q. You, J. Luo, H. Jin, and J. Yang, “Building a large scale dataset for image emotion recognition: The fine print and the benchmark,” in AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 30, no. 1, 2016

2016
[14]

Focal loss for dense object detection,

T. Lin, P. Goyal, R. B. Girshick, K. He, and P. Doll ´ar, “Focal loss for dense object detection,” in IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 2017, pp. 2980–2988. FUZZY-AW ARE LOSS FOR SOURCE-FREE DOMAIN ADAPTATION IN VISUAL EMOTION RECOGNITION 11

2017
[15]

Symmetric cross entropy for robust learning with noisy labels,

Y . Wang, X. Ma, Z. Chen, Y . Luo, J. Yi, and J. Bailey, “Symmetric cross entropy for robust learning with noisy labels,” in IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2019, pp. 322–330

2019
[16]

Context based emotion recognition using emotic dataset,

R. Kosti, J. M. Alvarez, A. Recasens, and A. Lapedriza, “Context based emotion recognition using emotic dataset,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 42, no. 11, pp. 2755–2766, 2020

2020
[17]

Robust emotion recognition in context debiasing,

D. Yang, K. Yang, M. Li, S. Wang, S. Wang, and L. Zhang, “Robust emotion recognition in context debiasing,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 12 447–12 457

2024
[18]

Visual sentiment prediction based on automatic discovery of affective regions,

J. Yang, D. She, M. Sun, M.-M. Cheng, P. L. Rosin, and L. Wang, “Visual sentiment prediction based on automatic discovery of affective regions,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 2513– 2525, 2018

2018
[19]

Deep facial expression recognition: A survey,

S. Li and W. Deng, “Deep facial expression recognition: A survey,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing , vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1195– 1215, 2020

2020
[20]

Step: Spatial temporal graph convolutional networks for emotion perception from gaits,

U. Bhattacharya, T. Mittal, R. Chandra, T. Randhavane, A. Bera, and D. Manocha, “Step: Spatial temporal graph convolutional networks for emotion perception from gaits,” in AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 34, no. 02, 2020, pp. 1342–1350

2020
[21]

M3er: Multiplicative multimodal emotion recognition using facial, textual, and speech cues,

T. Mittal, U. Bhattacharya, R. Chandra, A. Bera, and D. Manocha, “M3er: Multiplicative multimodal emotion recognition using facial, textual, and speech cues,” in AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 34, no. 02, 2020, pp. 1359–1367

2020
[22]

Emotion recognition in context,

R. Kosti, J. M. Alvarez, A. Recasens, and A. Lapedriza, “Emotion recognition in context,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2017, pp. 1667–1675

2017
[23]

Context de-confounded emotion recognition,

D. Yang, Z. Chen, Y . Wang, S. Wang, M. Li, S. Liu, X. Zhao, S. Huang, Z. Dong, P. Zhai et al., “Context de-confounded emotion recognition,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 19 005–19 015

2023
[24]

Visual sentiment prediction with deep convolutional neural networks,

C. Xu, S. Cetintas, K.-C. Lee, and L.-J. Li, “Visual sentiment prediction with deep convolutional neural networks,” arXiv:1411.5731, 2014

2014 arXiv
[25]

Visual sentiment analysis by attending on local image regions,

Q. You, H. Jin, and J. Luo, “Visual sentiment analysis by attending on local image regions,” in AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2017, pp. 231–237

2017
[26]

Solver: Scene-object interrelated visual emotion reasoning network,

J. Yang, X. Gao, L. Li, X. Wang, and J. Ding, “Solver: Scene-object interrelated visual emotion reasoning network,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 30, pp. 8686–8701, 2021

2021
[27]

Mdan: Multi-level dependent attention network for visual emotion analysis,

L. Xu, Z. Wang, B. Wu, and S. Lui, “Mdan: Multi-level dependent attention network for visual emotion analysis,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2022, pp. 9479–9488

2022
[28]

To err like human: Affective bias-inspired measures for visual emotion recognition evaluation,

C. Zhao, J. Shi, L. Nie, J. Yang et al. , “To err like human: Affective bias-inspired measures for visual emotion recognition evaluation,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2024

2024
[29]

Sentibank: large-scale ontology and classifiers for detecting sentiment and emotions in visual content,

D. Borth, T. Chen, R. Ji, and S.-F. Chang, “Sentibank: large-scale ontology and classifiers for detecting sentiment and emotions in visual content,” in ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2013, pp. 459–460

2013
[30]

Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark et al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” in International Conference on Machine Learning , 2021, pp. 8748–8763

2021
[31]

Simple but powerful, a language-supervised method for image emotion classification,

S. Deng, L. Wu, G. Shi, L. Xing, W. Hu, H. Zhang, and Y . Xiang, “Simple but powerful, a language-supervised method for image emotion classification,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 3317–3331, 2023

2023
[32]

A multi-stage visual perception approach for image emotion analysis,

J. Pan, J. Lu, and S. Wang, “A multi-stage visual perception approach for image emotion analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 2024

2024
[33]

How well do self- supervised methods perform in cross-domain few-shot learning?

Y . Zhang, Y . Zheng, X. Xu, and J. Wang, “How well do self- supervised methods perform in cross-domain few-shot learning?” arXiv:2202.09014, 2022

2022 arXiv
[34]

Unsupervised domain adaptation enhanced by fuzzy prompt learning,

K. Shi, J. Lu, Z. Fang, and G. Zhang, “Unsupervised domain adaptation enhanced by fuzzy prompt learning,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2024

2024
[35]

Do we really need to access the source data? source hypothesis transfer for unsupervised domain adaptation,

J. Liang, D. Hu, and J. Feng, “Do we really need to access the source data? source hypothesis transfer for unsupervised domain adaptation,” in International Conference on Machine Learning , 2020, pp. 6028–6039

2020
[36]

Source data-absent unsupervised domain adaptation through hypothesis transfer and labeling transfer,

J. Liang, D. Hu, Y . Wang, R. He, and J. Feng, “Source data-absent unsupervised domain adaptation through hypothesis transfer and labeling transfer,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence, vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 8602–8617, 2021

2021
[37]

Generalized source-free domain adaptation,

S. Yang, Y . Wang, J. Van De Weijer, L. Herranz, and S. Jui, “Generalized source-free domain adaptation,” in IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2021, pp. 8978–8987

2021
[38]

Exploiting the intrinsic neighborhood structure for source-free domain adaptation,

S. Yang, J. Van de Weijer, L. Herranz, S. Jui et al. , “Exploiting the intrinsic neighborhood structure for source-free domain adaptation,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2021, pp. 29 393– 29 405

2021
[39]

Attracting and dispersing: A simple approach for source-free domain adaptation,

S. Yang, S. Jui, J. van de Weijer et al. , “Attracting and dispersing: A simple approach for source-free domain adaptation,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, pp. 5802–5815, 2022

2022
[40]

Confidence score for source- free unsupervised domain adaptation,

J. Lee, D. Jung, J. Yim, and S. Yoon, “Confidence score for source- free unsupervised domain adaptation,” in International Conference on Machine Learning, 2022, pp. 12 365–12 377

2022
[41]

Divide and contrast: Source-free domain adaptation via adaptive contrastive learning,

Z. Zhang, W. Chen, H. Cheng, Z. Li, S. Li, L. Lin, and G. Li, “Divide and contrast: Source-free domain adaptation via adaptive contrastive learning,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, pp. 5137–5149, 2022

2022
[42]

C-sfda: A curriculum learning aided self-training framework for efficient source free domain adaptation,

N. Karim, N. C. Mithun, A. Rajvanshi, H.-p. Chiu, S. Samarasekera, and N. Rahnavard, “C-sfda: A curriculum learning aided self-training framework for efficient source free domain adaptation,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 24 120–24 131

2023
[43]

Discriminative pattern calibration mech- anism for source-free domain adaptation,

H. Xia, S. Xia, and Z. Ding, “Discriminative pattern calibration mech- anism for source-free domain adaptation,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 23 648–23 658

2024
[44]

Robust loss functions under label noise for deep neural networks,

A. Ghosh, H. Kumar, and P. S. Sastry, “Robust loss functions under label noise for deep neural networks,” in AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2017, pp. 1919–1925

2017
[45]

Generalized cross entropy loss for training deep neural networks with noisy labels,

Z. Zhang and M. R. Sabuncu, “Generalized cross entropy loss for training deep neural networks with noisy labels,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2018, pp. 8792–8802

2018
[46]

Peer loss functions: Learning from noisy labels without knowing noise rates,

Y . Liu and H. Guo, “Peer loss functions: Learning from noisy labels without knowing noise rates,” in International Conference on Machine Learning, 2020, pp. 6226–6236

2020
[47]

Normalized loss functions for deep learning with noisy labels,

X. Ma, H. Huang, Y . Wang, S. Romano, S. Erfani, and J. Bailey, “Normalized loss functions for deep learning with noisy labels,” in International Conference on Machine Learning , 2020, pp. 6543–6553

2020
[48]

Active negative loss func- tions for learning with noisy labels,

X. Ye, X. Li, T. Liu, Y . Sun, W. Tong et al., “Active negative loss func- tions for learning with noisy labels,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, pp. 6917–6940, 2023

2023
[49]

Asymmetric loss functions for noise-tolerant learning: Theory and applications,

X. Zhou, X. Liu, D. Zhai, J. Jiang, and X. Ji, “Asymmetric loss functions for noise-tolerant learning: Theory and applications,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 8094– 8109, 2023

2023
[50]

Deep semantic parsing of freehand sketches with homogeneous transformation, soft-weighted loss, and staged learning,

Y . Zheng, H. Yao, and X. Sun, “Deep semantic parsing of freehand sketches with homogeneous transformation, soft-weighted loss, and staged learning,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , vol. 23, pp. 3590– 3602, 2020

2020
[51]

Miti- gating memorization of noisy labels by clipping the model prediction,

H. Wei, H. Zhuang, R. Xie, L. Feng, G. Niu, B. An, and Y . Li, “Miti- gating memorization of noisy labels by clipping the model prediction,” in International Conference on Machine Learning , 2023, pp. 36 868– 36 886

2023
[52]

Emotional category data on images from the international affective picture system,

J. A. Mikels, B. L. Fredrickson, G. R. Larkin, C. M. Lindberg, S. J. Maglio, and P. A. Reuter-Lorenz, “Emotional category data on images from the international affective picture system,” Behavior Research Methods, vol. 37, pp. 626–630, 2005

2005
[53]

Large-scale visual sentiment ontology and detectors using adjective noun pairs,

D. Borth, R. Ji, T. Chen, T. Breuel, and S.-F. Chang, “Large-scale visual sentiment ontology and detectors using adjective noun pairs,” in ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2013, pp. 223–232

2013
[54]

Deep hashing network for unsupervised domain adaptation,

H. Venkateswara, J. Eusebio, S. Chakraborty, and S. Panchanathan, “Deep hashing network for unsupervised domain adaptation,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2017, pp. 5018–5027

2017
[55]

Nlnl: Negative learning for noisy labels,

Y . Kim, J. Yim, J. Yun, and J. Kim, “Nlnl: Negative learning for noisy labels,” in IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2019, pp. 101–110

2019
[56]

Polyloss: A polynomial expansion perspective of classification loss functions,

Z. Leng, M. Tan, C. Liu, E. D. Cubuk, J. Shi, S. Cheng, and D. Anguelov, “Polyloss: A polynomial expansion perspective of classification loss functions,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2022

2022
[57]

Deep residual learning for image recognition,

K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2016, pp. 770–778

2016
[58]

Source- free domain adaptation via avatar prototype generation and adaptation,

Z. Qiu, Y . Zhang, H. Lin, S. Niu, Y . Liu, Q. Du, and M. Tan, “Source- free domain adaptation via avatar prototype generation and adaptation,” in International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2021, pp. 2921–2927

2021
[59]

Adaptive adversarial network for source- free domain adaptation,

H. Xia, H. Zhao, and Z. Ding, “Adaptive adversarial network for source- free domain adaptation,” in IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2021, pp. 9010–9019. FUZZY-AW ARE LOSS FOR SOURCE-FREE DOMAIN ADAPTATION IN VISUAL EMOTION RECOGNITION 12

2021
[60]

Uncertainty-guided source-free domain adaptation,

S. Roy, M. Trapp, A. Pilzer, J. Kannala, N. Sebe, E. Ricci, and A. Solin, “Uncertainty-guided source-free domain adaptation,” in European Con- ference on Computer Vision , 2022, pp. 537–555

2022
[61]

When source-free domain adaptation meets learning with noisy labels,

L. Yi, G. Xu, P. Xu, J. Li, R. Pu, C. Ling, I. McLeod, and B. Wang, “When source-free domain adaptation meets learning with noisy labels,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2023

2023
[62]

Understanding and im- proving source-free domain adaptation from a theoretical perspective,

Y . Mitsuzumi, A. Kimura, and H. Kashima, “Understanding and im- proving source-free domain adaptation from a theoretical perspective,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 28 515–28 524

2024
[63]

Visualizing data using t-sne,

L. van der Maaten and G. Hinton, “Visualizing data using t-sne,” Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 9, pp. 2579–2605, 2008. Ying Zheng is currently a Research Fellow at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China. Before that, he received the Ph.D. degree f...

2008
[2012]

Besides, he served as associate editors for several IEEE journals and Distinguished Lecturer for IEEE BTS

He was general chairs and program chairs for some international conferences. Besides, he served as associate editors for several IEEE journals and Distinguished Lecturer for IEEE BTS

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Affective image content analysis: Two decades review and new perspectives,

S. Zhao, X. Yao, J. Yang, G. Jia, G. Ding, T.-S. Chua, B. W. Schuller, and K. Keutzer, “Affective image content analysis: Two decades review and new perspectives,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 6729–6751, 2021

work page 2021

[2] [2]

A fuzzy neural network enabled deep subspace domain adaptive fusion approaches for facial expression recognition,

W. Shu, F. Zhang, and R. Wan, “A fuzzy neural network enabled deep subspace domain adaptive fusion approaches for facial expression recognition,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems , 2024

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Fmfn: A fuzzy multimodal fusion network for emotion recognition in ensemble conducting,

X. Han, F. Chen, and J. Ban, “Fmfn: A fuzzy multimodal fusion network for emotion recognition in ensemble conducting,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2024

work page 2024

[4] [4]

A fuzzy deep neural network with sparse autoencoder for emotional intention understanding in human–robot interaction,

L. Chen, W. Su, M. Wu, W. Pedrycz, and K. Hirota, “A fuzzy deep neural network with sparse autoencoder for emotional intention understanding in human–robot interaction,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy systems , vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 1252–1264, 2020

work page 2020

[5] [5]

A survey of embodied learning for object-centric robotic manipulation,

Y . Zheng, L. Yao, Y . Su, Y . Zhang, Y . Wang, S. Zhao, Y . Zhang, and L.-P. Chau, “A survey of embodied learning for object-centric robotic manipulation,” Machine Intelligence Research, 2025

work page 2025

[6] [6]

Affective image classification using features inspired by psychology and art theory,

J. Machajdik and A. Hanbury, “Affective image classification using features inspired by psychology and art theory,” in ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2010, pp. 83–92

work page 2010

[7] [7]

Sketch- specific data augmentation for freehand sketch recognition,

Y . Zheng, H. Yao, X. Sun, S. Zhang, S. Zhao, and F. Porikli, “Sketch- specific data augmentation for freehand sketch recognition,” Neurocom- puting, vol. 456, pp. 528–539, 2021

work page 2021

[8] [8]

Multi-source domain adaptation for visual sentiment classification,

C. Lin, S. Zhao, L. Meng, and T.-S. Chua, “Multi-source domain adaptation for visual sentiment classification,” in AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 34, no. 03, 2020, pp. 2661–2668

work page 2020