Evaluation Protocols and Cross-Subject Generalization in EEG Emotion Recognition

Reported accuracy in electroencephalography (EEG) emotion recognition depends on the complete evaluation procedure, not only the classifier. We separate the target quantity, development procedure, and reporting rule, then use one archived dynamical graph convolutional neural network (DGCNN) pathway on SEED and SEED-IV as an illustrative case. In a protocol-matched subject-dependent check, the SEED result was within 1.47 percentage points of the public reference value; the 3.40-point SEED-IV difference remained unresolved. Across 30 matched SEED subject-session trajectories, checkpoint selection based on repeated test-set evaluation increased mean window accuracy from 0.7855 at epoch 80 to 0.8892. Under five-fold subject-disjoint evaluation, validation-selected checkpoints achieved training-participant trial accuracies of 0.9990 on SEED and 0.9920 on SEED-IV. Accuracy for entirely held-out participants was 0.5348 (95% conditional subject-level bias-corrected and accelerated [BCa] interval [0.4667, 0.5985]) on SEED. The SEED-IV estimate was 0.3954 ([0.3343, 0.4648]) and is reported only as secondary sensitivity evidence because its protocol-matched compatibility check remained unresolved. The observed train-to-held-out-subject gaps are inconsistent with simple optimization underfitting, but they do not isolate subject identity from implementation, preprocessing, representation, or distributional factors. Supporting analyses further showed that participant rankings depended on representation and time scale, while a development-selected tail-risk ensemble did not establish a positive gain in a separate final evaluation. Subject-dependent, subject-disjoint, and cross-session results should therefore be reported as answers to different questions.

Stop to Decide: Latency-Aware Proprioceptive Navigation Primitives for Mapping-Free Quadruped Inspection

Compute-constrained quadrupeds often run their navigation loop far below the controller's design rate: sharing the onboard Jetson Orin with the vision pipeline slows our stair loop to about 15 Hz. This latency breaks a standard proprioceptive pattern: declaring stair-summit arrival from the body-pitch signal while still climbing. On a stepped platform whose 50 cm top is shorter than the robot (Unitree Go2, about 75 cm), in-motion detection overshoots the top edge with probability rising with the per-period advance v/f (the slowest about 15 Hz cell partly diluted by a separate non-arrival mode), whereas a climb-settle cadence holds overshoot near zero at every loop rate (pooled 22/45 vs 1/45 over about 30/20/15 Hz; Fisher p about 2.4e-7; 7/15 vs 0/15 at the deployed about 15 Hz). A logistic dose-response model in v/f captures the failure; a pre-specified 40 Hz out-of-sample test favours the protocol-clean fit (33% observed vs 43%/22% predicted), giving a deployment rule (critical loop rate about 19 Hz at 0.30 m/s). The detector sits in a fully onboard, mapping-free and learning-free stack: built-in inertial measurement unit, four foot-force channels, three 1-D ranges, one line camera, chaining line-following, a three-segment maneuver for 90-degree corners in a 55 cm corridor (20/20 contact-free vs 14/20 with 12 wall contacts for in-place yaw; exit-heading error 1.56 degrees vs 5.64 degrees), and stair traversal, completing the inspection course in 18/20 trials (90%). Results are from a single course geometry, platform, and operator.