Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Uncertainty Estimation in the Real World: A Study on Music 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 This paper tests whether standard deep-learning uncertainty techniques can capture how much human raters disagree about the emotion in a piece of music, and reports that none of them can.

desk verdict A useful negative benchmark for UQ in music emotion recognition, but the NLL and KLD loss equations are not the stated losses, so the 'none of the methods' claim overreaches until they are fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11570 v1 pith:QBQA75DO submitted 2025-01-20 cs.SD cs.IRcs.LGeess.AS

Karn N. Watcharasupat , Yiwei Ding , T. Aleksandra Ma , Pavan Seshadri , Alexander Lerch This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SDcs.IRcs.LGeess.AS
keywords uncertaintyquantificationmusicemotionrecognitionpsychometricmachinelearningaleatoricinterraterdisagreementvalence-arousalMonteCarlodropout
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether modern deep-learning systems can do more than predict the average emotion a piece of music evokes: can they also predict how much listeners will disagree? The authors work with a dataset of 1,744 songs, each rated on valence and arousal by at least ten people, and compare five uncertainty-estimation methods: two losses that receive the empirical rating variance as an extra training target (mean squared error and KL divergence), a negative log-likelihood loss that learns variance without such a target, and two inference-time sampling schemes (multiple random seeds and Monte Carlo dropout). The central finding is negative. All five methods predict the mean valence and arousal reasonably well, but none produces standard-deviation estimates that correlate with the observed per-song spread: every $R^2$ value for standard-deviation prediction is effectively well below zero. The paper concludes that the uncertainty arising from interrater disagreement cannot currently be modeled by these standard approaches, even when the empirical uncertainty is supplied during training.

What carries the argument

The central object is the conditional Gaussian model $Y \mid X = x \sim \mathcal{N}(\mu_x, \Sigma_x)$ for a song's valence-arousal ratings, with $\Sigma_x$ taken diagonal so each song has a mean and a per-dimension standard deviation. The paper attaches five uncertainty estimators to a frozen pretrained music-feature extractor followed by a small two-layer network: direct regression of the distribution parameters via an MSE loss, minimization of the KL divergence between predicted and empirical Gaussians, negative log-likelihood training that learns $\hat\sigma$ without an empirical variance target, and two inference-time sampling schemes (separate training seeds and dropout masks) whose output spread is used as the uncertainty estimate. The comparison that carries the argument is between these predicted standard deviations and the empirical per-song standard deviations computed from the annotator ratings.

What would settle it

Take a set of songs with substantially more ratings per song (for example, fifty or more), recompute the per-song standard deviations, and rerun the same five methods; if any method's predicted spread correlates strongly with these more reliable targets despite failing on the ten-rater targets, the paper's conclusion would collapse into an artifact of noisy evaluation labels. A complementary check is a simulation study in which songs have known true variances and the same methods are trained on exact rather than estimated targets.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that interrater disagreement in music emotion recognition is not captured by any of the investigated uncertainty-quantification methods. Treating each song's ratings as a bivariate Gaussian with diagonal covariance, the paper trains models to output both a mean and a standard deviation for valence and arousal. Whether the empirical standard deviation is supplied as a training target (MSE and KLD losses) or learned indirectly (NLL loss) or replaced by inference-time variation (random seeds, MC dropout), the predicted standard deviations are essentially uncorrelated with the empirical ones, with $R^2$ values effectively well below zero and Pearson and Spearman correlations near zero or negative. The failure is not a matter of scale: the MSE- and KLD-trained models produce predicted spreads in the right range, but the ordering across songs is wrong. The authors' conclusion is that these methods, and the deterministic deep-learning machinery underneath them, are insufficient for modeling the variability of subjective responses.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the per-song standard deviation computed from about ten raters accurately represents true interrater disagreement, even though a standard deviation based on so few ratings carries enough sampling error to hide a genuine signal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, a music emotion recognition system that reports only a mean valence and arousal is not merely omitting a detail: the standard uncertainty-estimation toolkits attached to such systems will not supply the missing interrater spread.
  • The MSE- and KLD-trained models fail even though the empirical standard deviation is explicitly provided as a training target, so the deficit cannot be blamed on the absence of uncertainty supervision.
  • The random-seed and Monte Carlo dropout estimates systematically underestimate human disagreement, because the variation they measure is variation across model parameters, not across raters.
  • The negative result aligns with the paper's observation that recent large-scale uncertainty benchmarks outside music also fail to obtain accurate uncertainty estimates, suggesting the difficulty is not specific to this dataset or task.
  • The paper's conclusion points future work toward less common modeling strategies for subjective response distributions rather than incremental variants of the tested losses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not go this far, but its negative result could be partly an artifact of the evaluation target: with roughly ten ratings per song, the empirical standard deviation is a noisy estimate of the true interrater spread, and regressing toward such noisy targets would suppress even a genuine correlation. A dataset with many more raters per stimulus would separate this possibility from a tru
  • The paper does not test ordinal or count-based likelihoods. Since the raw ratings are discrete values normalized to a bounded interval, the Gaussian assumption may itself be a bottleneck; an ordinal likelihood that treats each rater's response directly could recover interrater spread where the Gaussian losses do not.
  • The paper notes that its feature extractor is frozen and that uncertainty information may have been discarded during embedding extraction; a natural test of this conjecture would be to fine-tune the backbone or draw features from several layers before applying the same five uncertainty heads.
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. This paper investigates whether deep-learning models can predict not only the mean but also the standard deviation of valence and arousal ratings in music emotion recognition, using the DEAM dataset and treating per-song SD as ground-truth interrater uncertainty. Five methods are compared: an MSE loss with an SD target, a KLD loss between predicted and empirical Gaussians, a Gaussian NLL loss, multiple random training seeds, and Monte Carlo dropout. The models use a frozen MusicFM foundation model with a small FCN head. The main empirical result is that mean prediction works reasonably (R2 around 0.6), whereas all methods fail to predict the per-song SD, with R2 well below zero and correlations near zero, leading the authors to conclude that none of the investigated methods can effectively model interrater uncertainty.

Significance. Assuming the negative result survives correction of the loss functions, the paper provides a useful, reproducible benchmark of standard UQ methods on a real subjective-regression task with external data. Its strengths are the use of a public benchmark dataset (DEAM), a held-out split with published song IDs, multiple evaluation metrics, and an honest discussion of limitations, including the frozen foundation model and the small number of raters. The finding that mean predictions are reasonable while SD predictions are essentially uncorrelated with empirical interrater SDs is important for MER and for psychometric machine learning more generally. However, as written, the evidence for the NLL and KLD rows of Table 3 does not test the methods named, so the strongest version of the conclusion is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) is not the KL divergence between N(mu_hat, sigma_hat^2) and N(mu, sigma^2). The correct KL, up to constants with respect to the predicted parameters, is 0.5*((mu_hat-mu)^2)/sigma^2 + 0.5*(sigma_hat^2/sigma^2) - log(sigma_hat). The first term in Eq. (2) divides by sigma_hat^2 instead of sigma^2, which changes the gradient so that increasing sigma_hat reduces the data-fit penalty; the log(sigma) and constant terms are also omitted. Consequently, the KLD row of Table 3 does not test the named KLD loss, and this is load-bearing for the paper's claim that 'none of the investigated methods' can model interrater uncertainty.
  2. [Section 2.3, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) is not the Gaussian negative log-likelihood for a target mu under N(mu_hat, sigma_hat^2). Up to an additive constant, the correct NLL is 0.5*((mu_hat-mu)/sigma_hat)^2 + log(sigma_hat); Eq. (3) has 0.5*log(sigma_hat), halving the variance penalty. Because this changes the balance between data fit and regularization, the NLL row of Table 3 does not establish that a correctly implemented NLL method fails. Since Table 3 is the core evidence for the central negative claim, this must be corrected and the experiments re-run or re-reported.
  3. [Section 3.1 and Section 5] The per-song standard deviation targets are computed from at least 10 annotators per song (Section 3.1). With about 10 Likert ratings, the sample SD has large sampling error, so even a perfect predictor of the true interrater SD would show substantially attenuated correlation with these targets. Section 5 mentions insufficient ratings as a possible cause, but the paper does not quantify this attenuation. The strong conclusion that the methods 'cannot effectively model' interrater uncertainty should be qualified or supported by a reliability analysis or simulation before the negative result is generalized.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 3] The Random Seeds row reports no standard deviations or confidence intervals, unlike the other rows; please explain or add them.
  2. [Sections 2.2 and 2.3] The notation sigma_hat is used for a standard deviation in Eq. (2), but Eq. (3) is written in a way that is ambiguous about whether sigma_hat denotes a standard deviation or a variance; please define the parameterization explicitly and keep it consistent throughout.
  3. [Figure 5] The colorbar in Figure 5 is labeled 'Emp. Mean' although the figure displays predicted and empirical SDs; if the points are colored by the empirical mean, please state this in the caption and explain the relevance, and otherwise correct the label.
  4. [Section 2.3] The phrase 'it is possible to arrive the negative log-likelihood loss' should read 'arrive at'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the negative result is an empirical benchmark finding, not a consequence of fitted definitions or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—'none of the investigated methods can effectively model the uncertainties associated with interrater disagreements' (Section 5)—rests on held-out evaluation against the DEAM dataset. The empirical standard deviation is used both as a training target for the MSE and KLD methods and as the evaluation label in Table 3, but the R2, Pearson, and Spearman metrics are computed on test songs not used for fitting, so there is no by-construction coupling between the estimator and the outcome. The uncertainty estimates from random seeds, MC dropout, and NLL are not fitted to the empirical SD at all, which makes the negative result a genuine empirical finding rather than a renamed input. The self-citations for the NLL loss ([18,19,31]) support a standard Gaussian negative log-likelihood formula; that formula is independently derivable from maximum likelihood and is not an unverified premise on which the paper's conclusion uniquely depends. The review's observation that Equations (2) and (3) do not exactly match the KL divergence and Gaussian NLL is a correctness concern about those specific Table 3 rows, not a circularity: even if those rows are invalidated, the MSE, random-seeds, and MC-dropout rows remain independent evidence, and the paper's reasoning does not define its outcome in terms of its inputs. The Section 5 caveats about insufficient ratings and the frozen foundation model are stated limitations, not circular reasoning. I therefore find no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The core empirical method relies on Gaussian modeling assumptions and hyperparameters; the central negative result does not depend on fitting a single constant, so circularity burden is low. No new theoretical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • FCN hidden layer size = 128
    Chosen via preliminary experiments to avoid overfitting (Section 3.3).
  • Dropout probability = 0.5
    Model hyperparameter used for both regularization and MC dropout (Section 3.3).
  • Initial learning rate = 1e-3
    Adam optimizer setting, with decay schedule, chosen as a standard value (Section 3.4).
  • Number of random seeds = 15
    Number of training runs for the multi-seed uncertainty estimate (Section 4).
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Ground-truth annotation distributions and model output distributions are Gaussian.
    Stated in Section 2: 'we assume, where necessary, that both ground-truth data distribution and output distribution are Gaussian.' This underpins the NLL and KLD loss formulations.
  • domain assumption The covariance matrix of the bivariate emotion response is diagonal.
    Section 2.1: 'we model Sigma_x as a diagonal matrix' to simplify deep learning output and avoid PSD constraints. This ignores correlations between valence and arousal uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Random seeds and MC dropout draws produce i.i.d. samples of model parameters from a conditional distribution.
    Equations (4)-(7) treat seed-specific and dropout-masked weights as i.i.d. from P_Theta|D and P_Theta_tilde|theta,D, an approximation that underpins the multi-seed and MC dropout uncertainty estimators.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Uncertainty Estimation in the Real World: A Study on Music Emotion Recognition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QBQA75DO

@misc{pith2026250111570,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Uncertainty Estimation in the Real World: A Study on Music Emotion Recognition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QBQA75DO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11570}
}
read the original abstract

Any data annotation for subjective tasks shows potential variations between individuals. This is particularly true for annotations of emotional responses to musical stimuli. While older approaches to music emotion recognition systems frequently addressed this uncertainty problem through probabilistic modeling, modern systems based on neural networks tend to ignore the variability and focus only on predicting central tendencies of human subjective responses. In this work, we explore several methods for estimating not only the central tendencies of the subjective responses to a musical stimulus, but also for estimating the uncertainty associated with these responses. In particular, we investigate probabilistic loss functions and inference-time random sampling. Experimental results indicate that while the modeling of the central tendencies is achievable, modeling of the uncertainty in subjective responses proves significantly more challenging with currently available approaches even when empirical estimates of variations in the responses are available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11570 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of different ways of uncertainty estimation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of mean and SD of valence ratings 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 Arousal Mean 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Arousal SD split train test val [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Empirical and corresponding predicted means of arousal and valence. For [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Empirical and corresponding predicted standard deviations of arousal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Information Fusion76, 243–297 (Dec 2021).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2021.05.008

    Abdar, M., Pourpanah, F., Hussain, S., Rezazadegan, D., Liu, L., Ghavamzadeh, M., Fieguth, P., Cao, X., Khosravi, A., Acharya, U.R., Makarenkov,V.,Nahavandi,S.:Areviewofuncertaintyquantificationindeep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges. Information Fusion76, 243–297 (Dec 2021).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2021.05.008

    doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2021.05.008 2021

  2. [2]

    PLOS ONE12(3), e0173392 (Mar 2017).https: //doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173392

    Aljanaki, A., Yang, Y.H., Soleymani, M.: Developing a benchmark for emotional analysis of music. PLOS ONE12(3), e0173392 (Mar 2017).https: //doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173392

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0173392 2017

  3. [3]

    IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing25(7), 1409–1420 (Jul 2017).https://doi.org/10.1109/TASLP.2017.2693565

    Chen, Y.A., Wang, J.C., Yang, Y.H., Chen, H.H.: Component Tying for Mixture Model Adaptation in Personalization of Music Emotion Recognition. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing25(7), 1409–1420 (Jul 2017).https://doi.org/10.1109/TASLP.2017.2693565

    work page arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    In: Proceedings of the 2020 International Joint Conference on Neural Net- works (IJCNN)

    Cheuk, K.W., Luo, Y.J., Balamurali, B.T., Roig, G., Herremans, D.: Regression-based Music Emotion Prediction using Triplet Neural Networks. In: Proceedings of the 2020 International Joint Conference on Neural Net- works (IJCNN). pp. 1–7. IEEE, Glasgow, United Kingdom (Jul 2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/IJCNN48605.2020.9207212

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing9(4), 541–549 (Oct 2018)

    Chin, Y.H., Wang, J.C., Wang, J.C., Yang, Y.H.: Predicting the Probability Density Function of Music Emotion Using Emotion Space Mapping. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing9(4), 541–549 (Oct 2018). https: //doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2016.2628794

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Frontiers in Neuroin- formatics 16, 997282 (Oct 2022).https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2022

    Cui, X., Wu, Y., Wu, J., You, Z., Xiahou, J., Ouyang, M.: A review: Music- emotion recognition and analysis based on EEG signals. Frontiers in Neuroin- formatics 16, 997282 (Oct 2022).https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2022. 997282

    doi:10.3389/fninf.2022 2022

  7. [7]

    In: Workshop Track Proceed- ings of the 4th International Conference on Learning Representations (2016)

    Gal, Y., Ghahramani, Z.: Bayesian Convolutional Neural Networks with Bernoulli Approximate Variational Inference. In: Workshop Track Proceed- ings of the 4th International Conference on Learning Representations (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Artificial Intelligence Review56(S1), 1513–1589 (Oct 2023).https://doi.org/10

    Gawlikowski, J., Tassi, C.R.N., Ali, M., Lee, J., Humt, M., Feng, J., Kruspe, A., Triebel, R., Jung, P., Roscher, R., Shahzad, M., Yang, W., Bamler, R., Zhu, X.X.: A survey of uncertainty in deep neural networks. Artificial Intelligence Review56(S1), 1513–1589 (Oct 2023).https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10462-023-10562-9

    work page 2023

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    In: Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo Workshops (ICMEW)

    Imbrasaite, V., Baltrusaitis, T., Robinson, P.: Emotion tracking in music usingcontinuousconditionalrandomfieldsandrelativefeaturerepresentation. In: Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo Workshops (ICMEW). pp. 1–6. IEEE, San Jose, CA, US...

    2013

  2. [10]

    In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Mul- 14 K

    Imbrasaite, V., Baltrusaitis, T., Robinson, P.: CCNF for continuous emotion tracking in music: Comparison with CCRF and relative feature representa- tion. In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Mul- 14 K. N. Watcharasupat et al. timedia and Expo Workshops...

    2014

  3. [11]

    Kendall, A., Gal, Y.: What Uncertainties Do We Need in Bayesian Deep Learning for Computer Vision? In: Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems. vol. 30. Curran Associates, Inc. (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    Kirchhof, M., Mucsányi, B., Oh, S.J., Kasneci, E.: URL: A Representation Learning Benchmark for Transferable Uncertainty Estimates. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. vol. 36, pp. 13956–13980. Curran Associates, Inc. (Nov 2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Computational Statistics & Data Analysis142, 106816 (Feb 2020).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2019.106816

    Kwon, Y., Won, J.H., Kim, B.J., Paik, M.C.: Uncertainty quantification using Bayesian neural networks in classification: Application to biomedical image segmentation. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis142, 106816 (Feb 2020).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2019.106816

    2020

  6. [14]

    In: An Introduction to Audio Content Analysis: Music Information Retrieval Tasks and Applications, pp

    Lerch, A.: Mood Recognition. In: An Introduction to Audio Content Analysis: Music Information Retrieval Tasks and Applications, pp. 127–216. IEEE (2023). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119890980.ch7

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Frontiers in Psychology11 (Jan 2021)

    Lionello, M., Aletta, F., Mitchell, A., Kang, J.: Introducing a Method for Intervals Correction on Multiple Likert Scales: A Case Study on an Urban Soundscape Data Collection Instrument. Frontiers in Psychology11 (Jan 2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.602831

    2021

  8. [16]

    In: 38th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    Mucsányi, B., Kirchhof, M., Oh, S.J.: Benchmarking uncertainty disentan- glement: Specialized uncertainties for specialized tasks. In: 38th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. Vancouver, Canada (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Müller, R., Kornblith, S., Hinton, G.: When does label smoothing help? In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. vol. 32, pp. 4694–4703. Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA (Dec 2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    In: Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing

    Ooi, K., Watcharasupat, K.N., Lam, B., Ong, Z.T., Gan, W.S.: Probably Pleasant? A Neural-Probabilistic Approach to Automatic Masker Selection for Urban Soundscape Augmentation. In: Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processi...

    2022

  11. [19]

    In: Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing

    Ooi, K., Watcharasupat, K.N., Lam, B., Ong, Z.T., Gan, W.S.: Autonomous SoundscapeAugmentationwithMultimodalFusionofVisualandParticipant- linked Inputs. In: Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing. IEEE, Rhodes Island, Greec...

    2023

  12. [20]

    Journal of personality and social psychology 39(6), 1161 (1980)

    Russell, J.A.: A circumplex model of affect. Journal of personality and social psychology 39(6), 1161 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077714

    1980 doi

  13. [21]

    In: Proceedings of the 11th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference’

    Schmidt, E.M., Kim, Y.E.: Prediction of Time-varying Musical Mood Dis- tributions from Audio. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference’. ISMIR, Utrecht, Netherlands (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    In: Proceedings of the 9th International Uncertainty Estimation in Music Emotion Recognition 15 Conference on Machine Learning and Applications

    Schmidt, E.M., Kim, Y.E.: Prediction of Time-Varying Musical Mood Dis- tributions Using Kalman Filtering. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Uncertainty Estimation in Music Emotion Recognition 15 Conference on Machine Learning and Applications. pp. 655–660. IEEE, Wash- i...

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    In: Proceedings of the 12th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference

    Schmidt, E.M., Kim, Y.E.: Modeling Musical Emotion Dynamics with Conditional Random Fields. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference. ISMIR, Miami, FL, USA (2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Learning Representa- tions (2022)

    Seitzer, M., Tavakoli, A., Antic, D., Martius, G.: On the Pitfalls of Het- eroscedastic Uncertainty Estimation with Probabilistic Neural Networks. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Learning Representa- tions (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    Smyth, P., Fayyad, U.M., Burl, M.C., Perona, P., Baldi, P.: Inferring Ground Truth from Subjective Labelling of Venus Images. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. vol. 7, pp. 1085–1092 (1994)

    1994

  18. [26]

    Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon New York, NY, second edition edn

    Tan, S.L., Pfordresher, P., Harré, R.: Psychology of Music: From Sound to Significance. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon New York, NY, second edition edn. (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    In: Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW)

    Valdenegro-Toro, M., Mori, D.S.: A Deeper Look into Aleatoric and Epis- temic Uncertainty Disentanglement. In: Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW). pp. 1508–1516. IEEE Computer Society (Jun 2022).https: //doi...

    2022

  20. [28]

    In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)

    Wang, J.C., Wang, H.M., Lanckriet, G.: A histogram density modeling ap- proach to music emotion recognition. In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). pp. 698–702. IEEE, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australi...

    2015

  21. [29]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Multimedia

    Wang, J.C., Yang, Y.H., Wang, H.M., Jeng, S.K.: The acoustic emotion gaussians model for emotion-based music annotation and retrieval. In: Pro- ceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Multimedia. pp. 89–98. ACM, Nara Japan (Oct 2012).https://doi.org/10.1145/239334...

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing6(1), 56–68 (Jan 2015).https://doi.org/10.1109/ TAFFC.2015.2397457

    Wang, J.C., Yang, Y.H., Wang, H.M., Jeng, S.K.: Modeling the Affective Content of Music with a Gaussian Mixture Model. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing6(1), 56–68 (Jan 2015).https://doi.org/10.1109/ TAFFC.2015.2397457

    2015

  23. [31]

    IEEE Signal Processing Letters29, 1749–1753 (2022)

    Watcharasupat, K.N., Ooi, K., Lam, B., Wong, T., Ong, Z.T., Gan, W.S.: Autonomous In-Situ Soundscape Augmentation via Joint Selection of Masker and Gain. IEEE Signal Processing Letters29, 1749–1753 (2022). https: //doi.org/10.1109/lsp.2022.3194419

    2022

  24. [32]

    In: ICASSP 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)

    Won, M., Hung, Y.N., Le, D.: A Foundation Model for Music Informatics. In: ICASSP 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). pp. 1226–1230. IEEE, Seoul, Korea, Republic of (Apr 2024).https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP48485.2024.10448314

    2024

  25. [33]

    Xiao, Y., Wang, W.Y.: Quantifying uncertainties in natural language pro- cessing tasks. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirty-First Innovative Applications of Artifi- cial Intelligence Conference and Ninth AAAI Symposium on E...

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    CRC Press (Feb 2011)

    Yang, Y.H., Chen, H.H.: Music Emotion Recognition. CRC Press (Feb 2011). https://doi.org/10.1201/b10731

    2011 doi

  27. [35]

    IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing19(7), 2184–2196 (Sep 2011).https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TASL.2011.2118752

    Yang, Y.H., Chen, H.H.: Prediction of the Distribution of Perceived Music Emotions Using Discrete Samples. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing19(7), 2184–2196 (Sep 2011).https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TASL.2011.2118752

    2011

  28. [36]

    In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Human-centered Multimedia

    Yang, Y.H., Su, Y.F., Lin, Y.C., Chen, H.H.: Music emotion recognition: The role of individuality. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Human-centered Multimedia. pp. 13–22. ACM, Augsburg Bavaria Germany (Sep 2007). https://doi.org/10.1145/1290128.1290132

    2007

  29. [37]

    Knowledge-Based Systems243, 108418 (May 2022).https://doi.org/10

    Zhang, X., Chan, F.T.S., Mahadevan, S.: Explainable machine learning in image classification models: An uncertainty quantification perspective. Knowledge-Based Systems243, 108418 (May 2022).https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.knosys.2022.108418

    2022

Pith tools

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