MPEC: Manifold-Preserved EEG Classification via an Ensemble of Clustering-Based Classifiers

Majid Ramezani; Mohammad-Reza Nasiri; Shermin Shahbazi

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 26 references

MPEC: Manifold-Preserved EEG Classification via an Ensemble of Clustering-Based Classifiers

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MPEC claims 78.12% average accuracy on BCI Competition IV dataset 2a by preserving the Riemannian geometry of EEG covariance features.

desk verdict A plausible but under-specified pipeline whose headline accuracy is likely an artifact of comparing an 80-20 random split to cross-session baselines. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21427 v1 pith:PC5ZAZKZ submitted 2025-04-30 cs.LG cs.AI

Shermin Shahbazi , Mohammad-Reza Nasiri , Majid Ramezani This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.AI

keywords brain-computerinterfacesEEGsignalclassificationensemblemodelingclustering-basedRiemannianmanifoldcovariancematrixRBFkernelmotorimagery

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 proposes MPEC, a classification pipeline for EEG-based brain-computer interfaces that keeps the non-Euclidean geometry of EEG signals intact instead of flattening it into Euclidean space. It argues that treating covariance matrices as points on a Riemannian manifold, clustering them with a manifold-aware distance, and then projecting each cluster to the tangent space before stacking four classifiers yields more accurate decoding of four motor-imagery tasks. On the BCI Competition IV dataset 2a, MPEC reports 78.12% average accuracy, above the 49.00% to 73.57% range of five published baselines. If correct, this shows that geometric faithfulness in feature engineering and clustering, not just more powerful classifiers, is a practical lever for BCI accuracy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the weighted Riemannian distance $D(x_i, c_j) = w_1 d_R(x_i, c_j) + w_2 \theta_{x_i}$, where $d_R$ is the geodesic distance on the manifold of SPD covariance matrices and $\theta_{x_i}$ is the slope of the tangent plane at the point, encoding local curvature. This distance replaces Euclidean distance inside K-means so that cluster assignments honor the curved geometry of EEG covariance features. Around this, the pipeline wraps the covariance-plus-RBF feature representation, per-cluster tangent-space projection, and a stacking ensemble whose meta-model is a ridge classifier; the claim is that the combination preserves manifold information through to the final decision.

What would settle it

Run MPEC under the BCI Competition IV 2a session-to-session protocol (training on session 1, testing on session 2 for each subject) against the same five baselines; if the accuracy margin nearly vanishes, the advantage comes from the split rather than the manifold. Alternatively, ablate the manifold-aware clustering by replacing its weighted distance with Euclidean distance on vectorized covariance matrices while keeping all other phases fixed; if accuracy does not drop, manifold preservation is not the load-bearing component.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

MPEC claims that EEG classification accuracy improves when every stage of the pipeline respects the Riemannian geometry of symmetric positive definite (SPD) matrices. The method represents each trial by a covariance matrix and an RBF kernel matrix, both of which are SPD and hence carry a manifold structure. A modified K-means clusters these matrices using a weighted sum of the Riemannian (geodesic) distance and the tangent-plane slope, preserving local curvature; each cluster is then mapped to its tangent space for linear classification. A stacking ensemble of SVM, logistic regression, MLP, and random forest with a ridge meta-model produces the final label. On all nine subjects of BCI Competition IV dataset 2a, the ensemble reaches 78.12% accuracy, beating the five compared baselines, which the authors attribute to the manifold-preserving design rather than to any single learner.

Load-bearing premise

The reported accuracy gap rests on the assumption that the 80-20 random split is a fair comparison to the protocols used by the five baselines, so the difference in Table III reflects algorithmic superiority rather than an easier evaluation setup.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Independent replication on the same data with the same split should reproduce MPEC's 78.12% average accuracy if the method is stable.
The per-cluster tangent-space step implies that local linearization is enough for classification, so the method could scale to higher-density EEG without global Euclidean embeddings.
Because the ensemble's four learners share one manifold-preserved representation, any accuracy gain is attributable to that representation, not to a single classifier's strength.
The spread across subjects (55.14% to 90.74%) suggests the method's benefit depends on subject-specific signal quality; identifying that dependency is a direct next step.

Reading between the lines

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

An ablation that sets the curvature weight $w_2$ to zero would isolate how much the tangent-slope term, rather than the Riemannian distance alone, contributes to the reported gain; the paper does not include this control.
If manifold preservation is the active ingredient, the same clustering-plus-tangent-projection recipe should transfer to other SPD-feature domains such as MEG or fNIRS classification, which the paper does not test.
The paper uses a random 80-20 split across both recording sessions; under the original competition's session-to-session transfer protocol, the margin over baselines could shrink, and measuring that is a sharper test of the claim.

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

The headline number is not trustworthy as reported. MPEC is a reasonable engineering pipeline: covariance plus RBF features, clustering on the SPD manifold with a distance that supposedly mixes Riemannian distance and local curvature, tangent-space projection, and a stacking ensemble. The writing is clear, and the parameter list is fairly detailed. That is the good part.

The stress-test concern is the central issue. The paper evaluates MPEC on an 80-20 random split of the 576 trials (two sessions per subject) and then compares against baseline accuracies taken directly from the cited papers. Those papers almost certainly use the standard BCI-IV-2a protocol: train on one session, test on the other. EEG is strongly non-stationary across sessions; a random split lets the model exploit within-session correlations (drift, impedance, fatigue). So the reported 78.12% versus 73.57% for Wijaya et al. does not demonstrate algorithmic superiority; it demonstrates protocol mismatch. The authors give no evidence that any baseline was re-run under the same 80-20 split. This alone invalidates the headline comparison.

The method is also under-specified. The "slope of the tangent plane" (theta_xi) is never defined, so the novel clustering step cannot be re-run. Algorithm I also has a typo: step 2.1.3 writes w1*d_R + w1*theta, presumably intending w2*theta. More seriously, the feature engineering phase combines a covariance matrix (channels x channels) with an RBF kernel matrix (samples x samples) via a weighted sum; those dimensions do not match. If the authors intended something else, it is not explained.

Hyperparameter selection is a third concern: weights and cluster counts were chosen by trial and error on the benchmark, with sigma=0.1 and K=3 reported. There is no nested validation or clear separation between tuning and testing, so the 78.12% may partially reflect overfitting to the test set. The 5-fold cross-validation is mentioned but not clearly integrated into the protocol.

Minor point: the positive-definiteness proof for the covariance matrix is hand-wavy; covariance matrices can be singular if channels are linearly dependent, though with 22 channels and enough trials it is usually full rank.

Credit where due: the pipeline is a sensible combination of published ideas, and the literature review correctly situates it in Riemannian geometry for EEG. If the evaluation were redone with matched protocols, the ensemble-of-clustering idea might be worth exploring. But as presented, the empirical claim is unsupported and the method is not reproducible.

Recommendation: I would not accept this in its current form. A serious referee should ask for a full re-evaluation under a matching cross-session protocol (or at least a re-run of baselines under the same split), a precise definition of the curvature term, and a fix to the dimension mismatch. If the authors can do that, there may be a modest contribution here. For now, treat the headline accuracy as unverified.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes MPEC, a four-phase EEG classification pipeline evaluated on BCI Competition IV dataset 2a: correlation-based channel selection, covariance and RBF-kernel feature matrices processed as SPD matrices, a modified K-means clustering algorithm on the Riemannian manifold, per-cluster tangent-space projection, and a stacking ensemble (SVM, logistic regression, MLP, random forest) with a Ridge meta-model. The authors report an average accuracy of 78.12% for MPEC and compare this with five published baselines, claiming substantial improvements in multi-class motor-imagery classification. The central claim is empirical: that preserving Riemannian manifold structure through the proposed clustering and projection strategy yields superior accuracy.

Significance. If the reported results were valid, the paper would offer a useful contribution to Riemannian-geometry-based EEG classification, and the ensemble-of-clustered-classifiers architecture is a reasonable idea worth exploring. The manuscript has strengths: it uses a standard public dataset, provides pseudocode for both algorithms, and reports standard metrics. However, the evidence for the central claim is not reliable as presented. The evaluation protocol for MPEC is not comparable to that of the cited baselines, and the core clustering metric contains an undefined term and an apparent typo. The paper also does not provide code, final hyperparameter values, or a clear validation scheme, so the reported advantages cannot be independently reproduced or attributed to the method.

major comments (4)

[Section IV.B and Table III] The headline accuracy comparison in Table III is not based on a common evaluation protocol. Section IV.B states that 'the train-test split is set at 80-20 for all models,' which applies only to the authors' own models. The baselines in Table III are cited from their original papers, and no evidence is given that any baseline was re-run under the same random 80-20 split. For BCI Competition IV dataset 2a, the standard benchmark protocol is cross-session evaluation (train on one session, test on the other), because EEG statistics shift across sessions. An 80-20 random split over the combined sessions can exploit within-session correlations and inflate accuracy relative to cross-session protocols. Since Section IV.D gives no protocol details for the five baselines, the reported improvement of MPEC over Jindal et al. [21], Hou et al. [22], Wijaya et al. [23], Rodrigues et al. [24], and Amin et al. [25] may be an artifact of this protocol mismatch rather than evidence of algorithmic superiority. This is the load-bearing issue for the paper's main claim.
[Algorithm I, steps 2.1.2-2.1.3] The proposed clustering distance is not fully specified. Step 2.1.2 asks to 'calculate the slope of the tangent plane at x_i in relation to each centroid, theta_{x_i},' but theta is never defined anywhere in the paper, and the phrase does not correspond to a standard quantity in Riemannian geometry. Step 2.1.3 then writes the combined distance as D(x_i,c_j) = w1*d_R(x_i,c_j) + w1*theta_{x_i}, which uses w1 twice, contradicting the initialization w1 + w2 = 1 in step 1.2; presumably this should be w1*d_R + w2*theta. Because the clustering objective is the core novelty of Phase 2, the exact algorithm cannot be re-implemented from the text.
[Equations (1), (3) and Algorithm II, Phase 1] The fusion of the covariance matrix and the RBF kernel matrix is dimensionally inconsistent. Equation (1) defines the covariance matrix C in R^{n x n}, with n indexing EEG channels, while Equation (3) defines the RBF kernel matrix K_{ij} = K(x_i, x_j) for N signal samples, so K is naturally in R^{N x N}. Algorithm II, Phase 1, step 1.4, however, instructs the method to 'combine the covariance matrix and RBF kernel matrices using a weighted sum.' Unless N equals n, which is not the case here (N is the number of trials and n is the number of channels), the weighted sum of C and K is undefined. The paper needs to clarify the actual dimensions and how the two matrices are fused.
[Section IV.B] The empirical evaluation lacks a clean model-selection procedure. The text reports that feature subsets, sigma, K, and the fusion weights were selected by 'trial and error' and that the best performance was used for the final model, but no final values for w1, w2, or the covariance/RBF fusion weights are reported, and it is unclear whether selection was performed on the test set. The statement that 'a 5-fold cross-validation was employed to validate the model and fine-tune its performance' does not clarify whether cross-validation was nested inside the training split or used for direct model selection on the evaluation data. Without a separate validation set or nested cross-validation, the reported 78.12% accuracy may be optimistically biased.

minor comments (5)

[Algorithm I] Step 2.1.3 appears twice with different instructions (normalization and combination); the duplicate numbering should be fixed.
[Fig. 3 caption] The figure caption lists '[22] [23] [24] [25] [26] MPEC' but the reference list has no [26]; Table III labels the baselines as [21]-[25]. The caption should be corrected.
[Section III.B.1] The proof of positive definiteness of the covariance matrix is not rigorous: a covariance matrix is positive semidefinite in general, and positive definiteness holds only under full-rank conditions. The claim that 'the variance of any non-trivial EEG signal is greater than zero' does not by itself establish v^T C v > 0 for every nonzero v.
[Section III.B.1, RBF kernel discussion] The argument for positive definiteness of the RBF kernel matrix is incomplete: positivity of the exponential function does not imply the kernel matrix is positive definite; the standard proof requires that the Gram matrix be positive definite for distinct points. The wording 'except when v = 0' is not the correct condition.
[Section IV.D] For each baseline in Table III, the protocol used in the original papers (e.g., cross-session, subject-dependent, number of trials) should be stated, so the reader can judge comparability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: MPEC's reported gain is an empirical benchmark result, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

MPEC is an empirical pipeline whose claimed derivation chain is feature engineering (covariance matrices plus RBF kernels), Riemannian-manifold K-means clustering, tangent-space projection, and stacking-based classification. The accuracy figures in Tables II and III are measurements on the BCI Competition IV dataset 2a, not conclusions derived from assumptions that already contain those numbers. Hyperparameters such as sigma=0.1, K=3, and the stacking weights are selected by trial and error; this is ordinary empirical model selection, not a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction. The Riemannian-distance-plus-curvature metric is a design choice, and no theorem is invoked that presupposes MPEC's superiority. The self-citations [17]–[20] are used for generic statements about stacking ensembles and the limitations of F1-score; they are not load-bearing for the central claim that preserving manifold structure improves classification accuracy. The more substantive concern is that Table III compares MPEC, evaluated under an 80-20 random split, with baseline numbers imported from papers that may use different evaluation protocols; this is a correctness/comparability risk, not derivation-level circularity. No equation in the paper is equivalent by construction to the reported improvement, and no self-citation chain forces the result. Therefore the paper does not exhibit significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on several unverified or undefined components: the curvature term in clustering, the claim that covariance and RBF matrices are SPD and combinable, and the assumption that an 80-20 random split is comparable to the baselines' protocols. These are not supported by the paper's text.

free parameters (6)

w1, w2 (Riemannian distance and tangent-slope weights) = not reported, sum to 1, chosen by trial and error
Used in the modified K-means distance of Algorithm I; the paper says weights are selected through trial and error, not learned from data or derived.
sigma (RBF kernel width) = 0.1
Set to 0.1 to capture non-linear relationships; selected by tuning.
K (number of clusters) = 3
Best from a search over 3 to 13.
Covariance/RBF fusion weights = incremented by 0.1, sum to 1
Algorithm II Phase 1.4 combines the two matrices with weights chosen by trial and error.
alpha (Ridge meta-model) = 10
Regularization strength, chosen as a balance of bias and variance.
Number of selected features = 22
Best from subset sizes 10 to 22.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Covariance matrices of EEG trials are symmetric positive definite and lie on the SPD manifold
Section III.B.1.B justifies Riemannian processing with this claim; in practice covariance matrices are only positive semidefinite, and the proof provided is incorrect.
standard math The RBF kernel matrix is positive definite for the EEG samples
Used to justify placing kernel features on the SPD manifold; true for distinct points but the paper's proof is incomplete.
ad hoc to paper The 'slope of the tangent plane' at a data point relative to a centroid is a well-defined computable quantity
Introduced in Algorithm I with no formula; this quantity is load-bearing for the clustering distance.
domain assumption Tangent-space projection of each cluster preserves discriminative information
RQ4 is answered affirmatively without a quantitative test.
domain assumption The 80-20 random split evaluation is comparable to the protocols used in the cited baseline papers
Implicitly assumed when Table III compares MPEC to literature results; not stated or justified.

invented entities (1)

Tangent slope (theta_xi)
purpose: Add local curvature information to the clustering distance
No definition, formula, or computing procedure is given anywhere in the paper; it is a placeholder.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MPEC: Manifold-Preserved EEG Classification via an Ensemble of Clustering-Based Classifiers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PC5ZAZKZ

@misc{pith2026250421427,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MPEC: Manifold-Preserved EEG Classification via an Ensemble of Clustering-Based Classifiers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PC5ZAZKZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21427}
}

read the original abstract

Accurate classification of EEG signals is crucial for brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) and neuroprosthetic applications, yet many existing methods fail to account for the non-Euclidean, manifold structure of EEG data, resulting in suboptimal performance. Preserving this manifold information is essential to capture the true geometry of EEG signals, but traditional classification techniques largely overlook this need. To this end, we propose MPEC (Manifold-Preserved EEG Classification via an Ensemble of Clustering-Based Classifiers), that introduces two key innovations: (1) a feature engineering phase that combines covariance matrices and Radial Basis Function (RBF) kernels to capture both linear and non-linear relationships among EEG channels, and (2) a clustering phase that employs a modified K-means algorithm tailored for the Riemannian manifold space, ensuring local geometric sensitivity. Ensembling multiple clustering-based classifiers, MPEC achieves superior results, validated by significant improvements on the BCI Competition IV dataset 2a.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21427 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[21]

A novel EEG channel selection and classification methodology for multi‐class motor imagery‐based BCI system design,

K. Jindal, R. Upadhyay, and H. S. Singh, “A novel EEG channel selection and classification methodology for multi‐class motor imagery‐based BCI system design,” Int J Imaging Syst Technol , vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1318–1337, 2022

work page 2022
[22]

A novel method for classification of multi -class motor imagery tasks based on feature fusion,

Y. Hou, T. Chen, X. Lun, and F. Wang, “A novel method for classification of multi -class motor imagery tasks based on feature fusion,” Neurosci Res, vol. 176, pp. 40–48, 2022

work page 2022
[23]

Improving multi -class EEG-motor imagery classification using two -stage detection on one - versus-one approach,

A. Wijaya, T. B. Adji, and N. A. Setiawan, “Improving multi -class EEG-motor imagery classification using two -stage detection on one - versus-one approach,” Communications in Science and Technology , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 85–92, 2020

work page 2020
[24]

Space -time recurrences for functional connectivity evaluation and feature extraction in motor imagery brain -computer interfaces,

P. G. Rodrigues, C. A. S. Filho, R. Attux, G. Castellano, and D. C. Soriano, “Space -time recurrences for functional connectivity evaluation and feature extraction in motor imagery brain -computer interfaces,” Med Biol Eng Comput, vol. 57, pp. 1709–1725, 2019

work page 2019
[25]

Deep Learning for EEG motor imagery classification based on multi -layer CNNs feature fusion,

S. U. Amin, M. Alsulaiman, G. Muhammad, M. A. Mekhtiche, and M. S. Hossain, “Deep Learning for EEG motor imagery classification based on multi -layer CNNs feature fusion,” Future Generation computer systems, vol. 101, pp. 542–554, 2019. 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Subj. 1 Subj. 2 Subj. 3 Subj. 4 Subj. 5 Subj. 6 Subj. 7 Subj. 8 Subj. 9 Avg

work page 2019
[1]

A review of classification algorithms for EEG -based brain–computer interfaces: a 10 year update,

F. Lotte et al., “A review of classification algorithms for EEG -based brain–computer interfaces: a 10 year update,” J Neural Eng, vol. 15, no. 3, p. 31005, 2018

work page 2018
[2]

Riemannian Geometry -Based EEG Approaches: A Literature Review,

I. E. Tibermacine et al. , “Riemannian Geometry -Based EEG Approaches: A Literature Review,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.20250, 2024

arXiv 2024
[3]

Exploring non - Euclidean relationships in EEG emotion recognition: A dynamic graph attention network,

R. Fu, M. Cai, S. Wang, Y. Wang, and C. Jia, “Exploring non - Euclidean relationships in EEG emotion recognition: A dynamic graph attention network,” Biomed Signal Process Control, vol. 94, p. 106276, 2024

work page 2024

Show all 26 references

[4]

Dimensionality reduction of SPD data based on riemannian manifold tangent spaces and isometry,

W. Gao, Z. Ma, W. Gan, and S. Liu, “Dimensionality reduction of SPD data based on riemannian manifold tangent spaces and isometry,” Entropy, vol. 23, no. 9, p. 1117, 2021

2021
[5]

Dimensionality reduction on SPD manifolds: The emergence of geometry-aware methods,

M. Harandi, M. Salzmann, and R. Hartley, “Dimensionality reduction on SPD manifolds: The emergence of geometry-aware methods,” IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 48–62, 2017

2017
[6]

Classification of covariance matrices using a Riemannian -based kernel for BCI applications,

A. Barachant, S. Bonnet, M. Congedo, and C. Jutten, “Classification of covariance matrices using a Riemannian -based kernel for BCI applications,” Neurocomputing, vol. 112, pp. 172–178, 2013

2013
[7]

Manifold Learning- based Common Spatial Pattern for EEG Signal Classification,

G. Cai, F. Zhang, B. Yang, S. Huang, and T. Ma, “Manifold Learning- based Common Spatial Pattern for EEG Signal Classification,” IEEE J Biomed Health Inform, 2024

2024
[8]

EEG -based emotion classification using stacking ensemble approach,

S. Chatterjee and Y. -C. Byun, “EEG -based emotion classification using stacking ensemble approach,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 21, p. 8550, 2022

2022
[9]

EEG dataset classification using CNN method,

W. L. Mao, H. I. K. Fathurrahman, Y. Lee, and T. W. Chang, “EEG dataset classification using CNN method,” in Journal of physics: conference series, IOP Publishing, 2020, p. 12017

2020
[10]

A Novel Method of motor imagery classification using eeg signal,

K. Venkatachalam, A. Devipriya, J. Maniraj, M. Sivaram, A. Ambikapathy, and S. A. Iraj, “A Novel Method of motor imagery classification using eeg signal,” Artif Intell Med, vol. 103, p. 101787, 2020

2020
[11]

EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single -trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis,

A. Delorme and S. Makeig, “EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single -trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis,” J Neurosci Methods, vol. 134, no. 1, pp. 9 –21, 2004

2004
[12]

Review of the BCI competition IV,

M. Tangermann et al. , “Review of the BCI competition IV,” Front Neurosci, vol. 6, p. 55, 2012

2012
[13]

Robust averaging of covariances for EEG recordings classification in motor imagery brain- computer interfaces,

T. Uehara, M. Sartori, T. Tanaka, and S. Fiori, “Robust averaging of covariances for EEG recordings classification in motor imagery brain- computer interfaces,” Neural Comput, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1631 –1666, 2017

2017
[14]

Development and evaluation of geostatistical methods for non -Euclidean-based spatial covariance matrices,

B. J. K. Davis and F. C. Curriero, “Development and evaluation of geostatistical methods for non -Euclidean-based spatial covariance matrices,” Math Geosci, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 767–791, 2019

2019
[15]

Riemannian and stratified geometries on covariance and correlation matrices,

Y. Thanwerdas, “Riemannian and stratified geometries on covariance and correlation matrices,” 2022, Université Côte d’Azur

2022
[16]

Exploring Feature Selection and Classification Techniques to Improve the Performance of an Electroencephalography-Based Motor Imagery Brain –Computer Interface System,

M. H. Kabir et al. , “Exploring Feature Selection and Classification Techniques to Improve the Performance of an Electroencephalography-Based Motor Imagery Brain –Computer Interface System,” Sensors (Basel), vol. 24, no. 15, 2024

2024
[17]

Automatic personality prediction: an enhanced method using ensemble modeling,

M. Ramezani et al., “Automatic personality prediction: an enhanced method using ensemble modeling,” Neural Comput Appl, vol. 34, no. 21, pp. 18369–18389, 2022

2022
[18]

RELIANCE: Reliable Ensemble Learning for Information and News Credibility Evaluation,

M. Ramezani, H. Mohammad -Shahi, M. Daliry , S. Rahmani, and A. Asghari, “RELIANCE: Reliable Ensemble Learning for Information and News Credibility Evaluation,” in 2024 20th CSI International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Signal Processing (AISP) , IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–9

2024
[19]

Text-based automatic personality prediction using KGrAt-Net: a knowledge graph attention network classifier,

M. Ramezani, M.-R. Feizi-Derakhshi, and M.-A. Balafar, “Text-based automatic personality prediction using KGrAt-Net: a knowledge graph attention network classifier,” Sci Rep, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 21453, 2022

2022
[20]

Knowledge Graph‐Enabled Text‐Based Automatic Personality Prediction,

M. Ramezani, M.-R. Feizi-Derakhshi, and M.-A. Balafar, “Knowledge Graph‐Enabled Text‐Based Automatic Personality Prediction,” Comput Intell Neurosci, vol. 2022, no. 1, p. 3732351, 2022

2022
[26]

[23] [24] [25] [26] MPEC

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [21]

A novel EEG channel selection and classification methodology for multi‐class motor imagery‐based BCI system design,

K. Jindal, R. Upadhyay, and H. S. Singh, “A novel EEG channel selection and classification methodology for multi‐class motor imagery‐based BCI system design,” Int J Imaging Syst Technol , vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1318–1337, 2022

work page 2022

[2] [22]

A novel method for classification of multi -class motor imagery tasks based on feature fusion,

Y. Hou, T. Chen, X. Lun, and F. Wang, “A novel method for classification of multi -class motor imagery tasks based on feature fusion,” Neurosci Res, vol. 176, pp. 40–48, 2022

work page 2022

[3] [23]

Improving multi -class EEG-motor imagery classification using two -stage detection on one - versus-one approach,

A. Wijaya, T. B. Adji, and N. A. Setiawan, “Improving multi -class EEG-motor imagery classification using two -stage detection on one - versus-one approach,” Communications in Science and Technology , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 85–92, 2020

work page 2020

[4] [24]

Space -time recurrences for functional connectivity evaluation and feature extraction in motor imagery brain -computer interfaces,

P. G. Rodrigues, C. A. S. Filho, R. Attux, G. Castellano, and D. C. Soriano, “Space -time recurrences for functional connectivity evaluation and feature extraction in motor imagery brain -computer interfaces,” Med Biol Eng Comput, vol. 57, pp. 1709–1725, 2019

work page 2019

[5] [25]

Deep Learning for EEG motor imagery classification based on multi -layer CNNs feature fusion,

S. U. Amin, M. Alsulaiman, G. Muhammad, M. A. Mekhtiche, and M. S. Hossain, “Deep Learning for EEG motor imagery classification based on multi -layer CNNs feature fusion,” Future Generation computer systems, vol. 101, pp. 542–554, 2019. 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Subj. 1 Subj. 2 Subj. 3 Subj. 4 Subj. 5 Subj. 6 Subj. 7 Subj. 8 Subj. 9 Avg

work page 2019

[6] [1]

A review of classification algorithms for EEG -based brain–computer interfaces: a 10 year update,

F. Lotte et al., “A review of classification algorithms for EEG -based brain–computer interfaces: a 10 year update,” J Neural Eng, vol. 15, no. 3, p. 31005, 2018

work page 2018

[7] [2]

Riemannian Geometry -Based EEG Approaches: A Literature Review,

I. E. Tibermacine et al. , “Riemannian Geometry -Based EEG Approaches: A Literature Review,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.20250, 2024

arXiv 2024

[8] [3]

Exploring non - Euclidean relationships in EEG emotion recognition: A dynamic graph attention network,

R. Fu, M. Cai, S. Wang, Y. Wang, and C. Jia, “Exploring non - Euclidean relationships in EEG emotion recognition: A dynamic graph attention network,” Biomed Signal Process Control, vol. 94, p. 106276, 2024

work page 2024