Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Multi-modal Collaborative Optimization and Expansion Network for Event-assisted Single-eye Expression Recognition

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that jointly optimizing a Mamba state-space model with both RGB and event data, then routing through heterogeneous experts, sets a new state of the art on the SEE single-eye expression recognition benchmark.

desk verdict A reasonable event-RGB fusion network, but the headline SOTA margin is likely inflated by test-set hyperparameter selection and missing error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12007 v3 pith:JON4YON4 submitted 2025-05-17 cs.CV

Runduo Han , Xiuping Liu , Shangxuan Yi , Yi Zhang , Hongchen Tan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords single-eyeexpressionrecognitioneventcamerastatespacemodelMambamixtureofexpertsmultimodalfusionemotionilluminationrobustness
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

The paper argues that a network combining RGB frames and event-camera streams can recognize single-eye expressions more reliably than prior methods, especially in low light, overexposure, and high dynamic range conditions. On the SEE benchmark it reports 91.3% WAR and 91.9% UAR, roughly 4.4 and 4.2 points above the previous best. This matters because single-eye expression recognition offers a privacy-preserving route to driver monitoring and close-range interaction, but has been fragile under difficult illumination. The proposed MCO-E Net attributes the gain to two components: a Mamba block whose state-space matrices are jointly optimized with both modalities, and a mixture-of-experts layer with structurally different experts and an attention-based router.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the Multi-modal Collaborative Optimization Mamba (MCO-Mamba) and the Heterogeneous Collaborative and Expansion Mixture-of-Experts (HCE-MoE). In MCO-Mamba, the SSM parameter matrices B and C of each modality are produced by concatenating both modalities' features, applying a learned linear projection, and adding back the modality's own value; only these B and C matrices are interacted, while A and D are left untouched. A gated cross-attention block then lets RGB features retrieve event motion details and event features retrieve RGB static semantics. HCE-MoE routes each fused representation through a Top-K selection among eight experts of three structural types (deep feed-forward, multi-head self-attention, and small-kernel convolution), with routing weights produced by an attention-augmented router. The B-C interaction carries the cross-modal alignment; the heterogeneous experts carry the semantic diversification.

What would settle it

Run the same architecture with hyperparameters selected on a held-out validation split rather than the test set, or on a new collection of single-eye event-RGB recordings with different lighting and subjects; if the 4.4-point WAR margin shrinks or reverses, the paper's central claim of a new state of the art would not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the modality gap between RGB video and event streams can be narrowed inside a selective state-space model rather than after feature extraction. The paper's MCO-Mamba updates the SSM input and output matrices B and C for each modality using information from both modalities; this joint optimization, supported by a cross-attention interaction block, is what aligns the two distributions. The second claim is that a Mixture of Experts with heterogeneous architectures (deep, attention, focal) outperforms a homogeneous MoE, because different experts capture complementary aspects of eye expression semantics. On the SEE test set the full system reaches 91.3% WAR and 91.9% UAR, exceeding all compared RGB-only, event-only, and fused baselines, with the largest gains over the runner-up in low-light and HDR conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the hyperparameters chosen by ablation on the SEE test set (interacting only B and C, eight experts, Top-K two) will keep working on unseen data, even though no held-out validation set or error bars are reported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, event-assisted single-eye recognition becomes the state of the art on the SEE benchmark, with the strongest gains under overexposure, low-light, and high dynamic range conditions.
  • Interacting only the B and C state-space matrices, while leaving A and D untouched, is the configuration that yields the reported accuracy; other interaction patterns degrade performance.
  • Heterogeneous experts with an attention-based router contribute more than expert count alone, since changing the number of experts away from eight reduces accuracy.
  • Removing either MCO-Mamba or HCE-MoE drops WAR and UAR by about two points, indicating both components carry part of the reported gain.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the authors do not state is that their fusion recipe, especially the B-C-only interaction in a selective state-space model, may transfer to other event-RGB tasks where long sequences and modality gaps matter, such as action recognition or privacy-preserving monitoring.
  • Because the final hyperparameters were chosen by ablating directly on the test set, the reported margin may shrink when the configuration is selected on a held-out validation split; a validation-based protocol would settle this.
  • If the extreme-lighting robustness holds under independent evaluation, event-assisted eye-region recognition could become a practical alternative to full-face recognition for driver monitoring and eyewear devices where privacy and illumination robustness are priorities.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MCO-E Net, a dual-modality network for single-eye expression recognition that combines RGB frames with event streams. The two main components are MCO-Mamba, which jointly optimizes and interacts the SSM parameters of the two modalities via a fusion function M and a cross-attention block, and HCE-MoE, which routes inputs through structurally heterogeneous experts (deep, attention, and focal) with an attention-based router. On the SEE benchmark, the authors report 91.3% WAR and 91.9% UAR, outperforming the previous best method by 4.4 and 4.2 percentage points, and they provide ablations of the two components, the interaction parameters, the number of experts, and the top-k routing. The code is released.

Significance. If the reported results are robust, this is a useful advance for event-assisted expression recognition, a niche but practically motivated task (driver monitoring, privacy-preserving HCI). The architectural ideas are plausible: collaborative SSM interaction is a reasonable extension of recent Mamba-based multimodal work, and heterogeneous experts with an attention router address a known limitation of homogeneous MoE layers. The paper ships code, reports systematic ablations, and the ablations are internally consistent with the design narrative. The central claim, however, is an empirical SOTA benchmark result, and its support depends entirely on the soundness of the evaluation protocol; the protocol as reported does not yet establish the claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Tables 3, 5, 6] The final configuration is selected by ablating directly on the same test split that is used for the headline SOTA comparison. Section 4.1 reports only a train/test split (1,638/767 sequences) and no validation set, and the chosen settings — interacting only the B and C SSM matrices, N_e=8, and TopK=2 — are the winners of Tables 3, 5, and 6, all of which report WAR/UAR on the test split. With 767 test sequences, the standard error of a ~91% accuracy is about 1.0 percentage point, and several alternative configurations are within 1.0-1.3 points of the chosen one (Table 5 A vs D; Table 6 B/C vs D). Selecting among roughly 15 configurations on the same data can plausibly inflate the apparent gain by more than the remaining margin. The claimed 4.4/4.2-point SOTA advantage is therefore not yet established as a property of the architecture rather than of the selection procedure. Please add a held-out validation split for model selection, or use nested cross-validation, and report the final configuration's performance on a truly unseen test set.
  2. [Tables 1-6] The paper reports a single run per configuration and provides no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. This matters because the central claim is a margin over prior SOTA, and many of the internal ablations differ by about one percentage point or less (e.g., Table 5: N_e=8 vs N_e=5 is 1.3 WAR; Table 6: k=2 vs k=3 is 1.0 WAR; Table 3: best B,C vs next-best A,C is 1.1 WAR). At 767 test sequences, these differences are within the expected sampling noise. Please report mean and standard deviation over at least three seeds for all tables, and preferably also confidence intervals or paired significance tests for the main comparison.
  3. [Table 1, References [14]] The strongest baseline, HI-Net, is the authors' own previous work (reference [14]), yet the manuscript does not state whether HI-Net was retrained under the exact same protocol (same pretraining, same event representation, same number of input frames, same optimizer and hyperparameters) or whether its numbers are taken from the original paper. Since the claimed SOTA advantage is precisely the margin over this baseline, the fairness of the comparison is load-bearing. Please clarify the protocol for all baselines and explicitly disclose the self-citation relationship in the text.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.5, Table 4] The text says 'B is to keep only Focal Experts', but Table 4 lists row D as the Focal-Experts-only configuration; this is a typo that should be corrected.
  2. [Section 4.4, Table 3] The text states that single-parameter sharing 'drops dramatically', but rows A-D are all between 89.8 and 90.2 WAR, only 1.1-1.5 points below the 91.3 of the chosen configuration; the wording overstates the observed degradation.
  3. [Abstract and Section 4.2] There are minor language issues such as 'comptitive performance' in the abstract and 'surpass the current state-of-the-art methods' without an explicit subject; these should be polished.
  4. [Section 4.1] The evaluation metric descriptions are slightly misleading: WAR is described as 'sample-size weighted recall' and as preventing majority-class dominance, but WAR is simply overall accuracy (weighted by class frequency); only UAR is class-balanced. Please rephrase for accuracy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the central SOTA claim is an empirical benchmark result, not a quantity derived from fitted inputs; the only concern is test-set hyperparameter selection, which is a statistical validity issue rather than equation-level circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is architectural rather than circular. MCO-Mamba defines a fusion operator M(A,B)=W·[A;B]+b⊕A (Eq. 5) and SSM state updates (Eqs. 1-4), and HCE-MoE defines a router and heterogeneous experts (Eqs. 14-19); none of these equations is defined in terms of the target metrics WAR/UAR or fitted from them. Ablations (Tables 2-6) are empirical comparisons on the SEE test split, not predictions derived from fitted parameters. The comparison baseline HI-Net [14] is a prior paper by overlapping authors, but it is used only as a baseline to beat and as related work; no load-bearing argument cites it as a theorem or justification for the architecture. The main methodological weakness is that final hyperparameters Ne=8 and TopK=2 are selected by test-set performance in Tables 5-6 and then the same test split's accuracy is reported, which is a selection-bias / overfitting-to-benchmark concern rather than a circular derivation: the reported number is not equal by construction to an input of the model. Because there is no self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, or self-citation-chain reduction, the paper is not circular at the equation level.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contains no derived constants; its dependencies are the standard Mamba machinery, the voxel event representation, the SEE benchmark, and a set of hyperparameters selected by test-set ablation. These are the main things the reader must accept on faith.

free parameters (5)
  • Number of experts (Ne) = 8
    Selected via ablation on the SEE test set (Table 5) as the best of 5, 8, 10, 15.
  • Top-k routing (k) = 2
    Selected via ablation on the SEE test set (Table 6) as the best of 1, 2, 3, 5.
  • SSM interaction matrices (B,C set) = B and C
    Selected via ablation on the SEE test set (Table 3, row K) as the best combination; other sets, including all four, give lower scores.
  • Number of input frames/tensors (m) = 2
    Chosen by hand in Section 4.1; not ablated.
  • Event channels (B) = 3
    Chosen by hand in Section 4.1; not ablated.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math The standard Mamba zero-order hold discretization is correct and appropriate for the joint B,C interaction.
    Algorithm 1 lines 18-19 use the standard discretize operation from Mamba [11,45] without re-deriving it.
  • domain assumption Voxel-grid event representation preserves the information needed for emotion recognition.
    Section 3.1 adopts the voxel grid from [1] and assumes it is sufficient for the task.
  • domain assumption The SEE dataset provides a reliable and representative evaluation for single-eye emotion recognition.
    All experiments use the SEE dataset [40] with its official split; no other dataset or cross-domain validation is performed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-modal Collaborative Optimization and Expansion Network for Event-assisted Single-eye Expression Recognition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JON4YON4

@misc{pith2026250512007,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-modal Collaborative Optimization and Expansion Network for Event-assisted Single-eye Expression Recognition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JON4YON4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12007}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we proposed a Multi-modal Collaborative Optimization and Expansion Network (MCO-E Net), to use event modalities to resist challenges such as low light, high exposure, and high dynamic range in single-eye expression recognition tasks. The MCO-E Net introduces two innovative designs: Multi-modal Collaborative Optimization Mamba (MCO-Mamba) and Heterogeneous Collaborative and Expansion Mixture-of-Experts (HCE-MoE). MCO-Mamba, building upon Mamba, leverages dual-modal information to jointly optimize the model, facilitating collaborative interaction and fusion of modal semantics. This approach encourages the model to balance the learning of both modalities and harness their respective strengths. HCE-MoE, on the other hand, employs a dynamic routing mechanism to distribute structurally varied experts (deep, attention, and focal), fostering collaborative learning of complementary semantics. This heterogeneous architecture systematically integrates diverse feature extraction paradigms to comprehensively capture expression semantics. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our proposed network achieves competitive performance in the task of single-eye expression recognition, especially under poor lighting conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.12007 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall architecture of our proposed MCO-E Net. The Network contains two novel designs: Multi-modal Collaborative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Architectures of proposed MCO-Mamba. We first [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Detailed of the proposed Heterogeneous Collabora [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Heatmap visualization of the comparison between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Heatmap visualization of the comparison between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [14]

    Runduo Han, Xiuping Liu, Yi Zhang, Jun Zhou, Hongchen Tan, and Xin Li. 2024. Hierarchical Event-RGB Interaction Network for Single-eye Expression Recog- nition. Information Sciences (2024). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 273305355

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Shafiq Ahmad, Pietro Morerio, and Alessio Del Bue. 2023. Person Re-Identification without Identification via Event Anonymization. arXiv:2308.04402 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.04402

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  3. [2]

    Pablo Barros and Alessandra Sciutti. 2021. I Only Have Eyes for You: The Impact of Masks On Convolutional-Based Facial Expression Recognition. arXiv:2104.08353 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.08353

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  4. [3]

    Tamer Basar. 2001. A New Approach to Linear Filtering and Prediction Problems . 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1109/9780470544334.ch9

    work page doi:10.1109/9780470544334.ch9 2001

  5. [4]

    Gal Blecher and Shai Fine. 2023. Moeatt: A deep mixture of experts model using attention-based routing gate. In 2023 International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA). IEEE, 1018–1024

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    Kyunghyun Cho. 2014. Learning phrase representations using RNN encoder- decoder for statistical machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.1078 (2014)

    arXiv 2014

  7. [6]

    Damai Dai, Chengqi Deng, Chenggang Zhao, R. X. Xu, Huazuo Gao, Deli Chen, Jiashi Li, Wangding Zeng, Xingkai Yu, Y. Wu, Zhenda Xie, Y. K. Li, Panpan Huang, Fuli Luo, Chong Ruan, Zhifang Sui, and Wenfeng Liang. 2024. DeepSeekMoE: Towards Ultimate Expert Specialization in Mixture-of-Experts Language Models. arXiv:2401.06066 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.06066

    arXiv 2024

  8. [7]

    Hongwei Dong, Shun Na, and Fengye Hu. 2024. Hybrid-Fusion Mamba for Multi- task Point Cloud Learning with Visual Perception Sensors.IEEE Internet of Things Journal (2024), 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2024.3512598

    arXiv 2024

Show all 47 references
  1. [8]

    Wenhao Dong, Haodong Zhu, Shaohui Lin, Xiaoyan Luo, Yunhang Shen, Xuhui Liu, Juan Zhang, Guodong Guo, and Baochang Zhang. 2024. Fusion-Mamba for Cross-modality Object Detection. arXiv:2404.09146 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/ abs/2404.09146

    2024 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Feng Gao, Xuepeng Jin, Xiaowei Zhou, Junyu Dong, and Qian Du. 2025. MSF- Mamba: Multi-Scale Feature Fusion State Space Model for Multi-Source Remote Sensing Image Classification. arXiv:2408.14255 [eess.IV] https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2408.14255

    2025 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Sam Gross, Marc’Aurelio Ranzato, and Arthur Szlam. 2017. Hard Mixtures of Experts for Large Scale Weakly Supervised Vision. arXiv:1704.06363 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.06363

    2017 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Albert Gu and Tri Dao. 2023. Mamba: Linear-time sequence modeling with selective state spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00752 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Albert Gu, Karan Goel, and Christopher Ré. 2022. Efficiently Modeling Long Sequences with Structured State Spaces. arXiv:2111.00396 [cs.LG] https://arxiv. org/abs/2111.00396

    2022 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Albert Gu, Isys Johnson, Karan Goel, Khaled Saab, Tri Dao, Atri Rudra, and Christopher Ré. 2021. Combining Recurrent, Convolutional, and Continuous- time Models with Linear State-Space Layers. arXiv:2110.13985 [cs.LG] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2110.13985

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Kensho Hara, Hirokatsu Kataoka, and Yutaka Satoh. 2018. Can spatiotemporal 3d cnns retrace the history of 2d cnns and imagenet?. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 6546–6555

    2018

  8. [16]

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2015. Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition. arXiv:1512.03385 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1512.03385

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Steven Hickson, Nick Dufour, Avneesh Sud, Vivek Kwatra, and Irfan Essa. 2017. Eyemotion: Classifying Facial Expressions in VR Using Eye-Tracking Cameras. 2019 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (W ACV) (2017), 1626–1635

    2017

  10. [18]

    Steven Hickson, Nick Dufour, Avneesh Sud, Vivek Kwatra, and Irfan Essa. 2019. Eyemotion: Classifying Facial Expressions in VR Using Eye-Tracking Cameras. In 2019 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (W ACV). 1626–

    2019

  11. [19]

    Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long Short-Term Memory. Neural Computation 9, 8 (1997), 1735–1780. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1997.9. 8.1735

    1997 doi

  12. [20]

    Jacobs, Michael I

    Robert A. Jacobs, Michael I. Jordan, Steven J. Nowlan, and Geoffrey E. Hinton

  13. [21]

    Jiyoung Lee, Sunok Kim, Seungryong Kim, and Kwanghoon Sohn. 2020. Multi- Modal Recurrent Attention Networks for Facial Expression Recognition. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 29 (2020), 6977–6991. https://doi.org/10.1109/ TIP.2020.2996086

    2020

  14. [22]

    Jiyoung Lee, Sunok Kim, Seungryong Kim, and Kwanghoon Sohn. 2020. Multi- modal recurrent attention networks for facial expression recognition. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 29 (2020), 6977–6991

    2020

  15. [23]

    Kunchang Li, Xinhao Li, Yi Wang, Yinan He, Yali Wang, Limin Wang, and Yu Qiao. 2024. VideoMamba: State Space Model for Efficient Video Understanding. arXiv:2403.06977 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.06977

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Yong Li, Yuanzhi Wang, and Zhen Cui. 2023. Decoupled multimodal distilling for emotion recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 6631–6640

    2023

  17. [25]

    Chang Liu, Xin Ma, Xiaochen Yang, Yuxiang Zhang, and Yanni Dong. 2024. COMO: Cross-Mamba Interaction and Offset-Guided Fusion for Multimodal Object Detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18076 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Yue Liu, Yunjie Tian, Yuzhong Zhao, Hongtian Yu, Lingxi Xie, Yaowei Wang, Qixiang Ye, Jianbin Jiao, and Yunfan Liu. 2024. VMamba: Visual State Space Model. arXiv:2401.10166 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.10166

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Basil Mustafa, Carlos Riquelme, Joan Puigcerver, Rodolphe Jenatton, and Neil Houlsby. 2022. Multimodal Contrastive Learning with LIMoE: the Language- Image Mixture of Experts. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave...

    2022

  20. [28]

    Noam Shazeer, Azalia Mirhoseini, Krzysztof Maziarz, Andy Davis, Quoc Le, Geoffrey Hinton, and Jeff Dean. 2017. Outrageously Large Neural Networks: The Sparsely-Gated Mixture-of-Experts Layer. arXiv:1701.06538 [cs.LG] https: //arxiv.org/abs/1701.06538

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Muhammad Hameed Siddiqi, Rahman Ali, Abdul Sattar, Adil Mehmood Khan, and Sungyoung Lee. 2014. Depth camera-based facial expression recognition system using multilayer scheme. IETE Technical Review 31, 4 (2014), 277–286

    2014

  22. [30]

    Du Tran, Heng Wang, Lorenzo Torresani, Jamie Ray, Yann LeCun, and Manohar Paluri. 2018. A closer look at spatiotemporal convolutions for action recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 6450–6459

    2018

  23. [31]

    Zifu Wan, Pingping Zhang, Yuhao Wang, Silong Yong, Simon Stepputtis, Katia Sycara, and Yaqi Xie. 2024. Sigma: Siamese Mamba Network for Multi-Modal Semantic Segmentation. arXiv:2404.04256 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2404. 04256

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    An Wang, Xingwu Sun, Ruobing Xie, Shuaipeng Li, Jiaqi Zhu, Zhen Yang, Pinxue Zhao, J. N. Han, Zhanhui Kang, Di Wang, Naoaki Okazaki, and Cheng zhong Xu. 2024. HMoE: Heterogeneous Mixture of Experts for Language Modeling. arXiv:2408.10681 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.10681

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Yang Wang, Haiyang Mei, Qirui Bao, Ziqi Wei, Mike Zheng Shou, Haizhou Li, Bo Dong, and Xin Yang. 2024. Apprenticeship-Inspired Elegance: Synergistic Knowledge Distillation Empowers Spiking Neural Networks for Efficient Single- Eye Emotion Recognition. In Proceedings of the Thi...

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Hao Wu, Jinghao Feng, Xuejin Tian, Edward Sun, Yunxin Liu, Bo Dong, Fengyuan Xu, and Sheng Zhong. 2020. EMO: real-time emotion recognition from single- eye images for resource-constrained eyewear devices. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Mobile Systems, A...

    2020

  27. [35]

    Hao Wu, Jinghao Feng, Xuejin Tian, Edward Sun, Yunxin Liu, Bo Dong, Fengyuan Xu, and Sheng Zhong. 2020. EMO: Real-time emotion recognition from single- eye images for resource-constrained eyewear devices. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Mobile Systems, A...

    2020

  28. [36]

    Shaohua Wu, Jiangang Luo, Xi Chen, Lingjun Li, Xudong Zhao, Tong Yu, Chao Wang, Yue Wang, Fei Wang, Weixu Qiao, et al. 2024. Yuan 2.0-m32: Mixture of experts with attention router. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17976 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Ming Xu, Tuo Shi, Hao Zhang, Zeyi Liu, and Xiao He. 2025. A Hierarchical Cross-modal Spatial Fusion Network for Multimodal Emotion Recognition. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence (2025), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAI. 2024.3523250

    2025

  30. [38]

    Jiaxin Ye, Junping Zhang, and Hongming Shan. 2025. DepMamba: Progressive Fusion Mamba for Multimodal Depression Detection. In ICASSP 2025 - 2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP49660.2025.10889975

    2025

  31. [39]

    Haotian Zhang, Keyan Chen, Chenyang Liu, Hao Chen, Zhengxia Zou, and Zhenwei Shi. 2025. CDMamba: Incorporating Local Clues Into Mamba for Remote Sensing Image Binary Change Detection. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 63 (2025), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1109/T...

    2025

  32. [40]

    Haiwei Zhang, Jiqing Zhang, Bo Dong, Pieter Peers, Wenwei Wu, Xiaopeng Wei, Felix Heide, and Xin Yang. 2023. In the Blink of an Eye: Event-based Emotion Recognition. In Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive Tech- niques Conference Conference Proceedings (...

    2023

  33. [41]

    Zhicheng Zhang, Lijuan Wang, and Jufeng Yang. 2023. Weakly supervised video emotion detection and prediction via cross-modal temporal erasing network. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 18888–18897

    2023

  34. [42]

    Zengqun Zhao and Qingshan Liu. 2021. Former-dfer: Dynamic facial expression recognition transformer. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 1553–1561. Conference’17, July 2017, Washington, DC, USA Runduo Han, Xiuping Liu, Shangxuan Yi, Yi Zhang,...

    2021

  35. [43]

    Ce Zheng, Matias Mendieta, and Chen Chen. 2023. POSTER: A Pyra- mid Cross-Fusion Transformer Network for Facial Expression Recognition. arXiv:2204.04083 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.04083

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Yanqi Zhou, Tao Lei, Hanxiao Liu, Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Vincent Zhao, An- drew M Dai, Quoc V Le, James Laudon, et al . 2022. Mixture-of-experts with expert choice routing. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022), 7103–7114

    2022

  37. [45]

    Lianghui Zhu, Bencheng Liao, Qian Zhang, Xinlong Wang, Wenyu Liu, and Xinggang Wang. 2024. Vision Mamba: Efficient Visual Representation Learning with Bidirectional State Space Model. arXiv:2401.09417 [cs.CV] https://arxiv. org/abs/2401.09417

    2024 arXiv

  38. [1635]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/WACV.2019.00178

    2019

  39. [1991]

    Neural Computation 3, 1 (1991), 79–87

    Adaptive Mixtures of Local Experts. Neural Computation 3, 1 (1991), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1991.3.1.79

    1991 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.