AI & ML
HiPAD: A Unified Gait, Audio-Visual, and Personality Fusion Network for Depression Detection, with a Hierarchical Personality Ablation and the Calibration Limits of Domain-Adapted LLMs
arXiv cs.SD0 views
arXiv:2610.14961v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We present HiPAD, a single fusion network submitted to all six sub-tracks of the MPDD-AVG 2026 depression-detection challenge, covering the Elder and Young cohorts and three modality sets (gait, audio-visual, and both), each combined with personality descriptions. The network encodes each available modality with a shared BiLSTM, zero-pads absent modalities, and applies cross-modal attention only when at least two of gait, audio and video are present. Personality, which dominates our results, is kept out of the attention and fused by concatenation. Because the architecture is identical in every sub-track, differences between them reflect the data rather than the model, and we use this to study three questions. Our main finding is that the personality description, roughly 150 tokens about who the subject is, carries more depression signal than audio, video, and gait combined: gait plus personality alone (TLS 0.647) beats every configuration that includes audio and video. First, a four-level ablation of the personality description (L0-L3) quantifies this: removing every personality-derived feature, including the Big Five scores that earlier MPDD ablations keep, lowers the Track-Level Score by 0.499 to 0.507 and leaves the model at chance. Second, domain-adapting the personality encoder with LoRA (7B) or QLoRA (72B) on PHQ-8/9 data raises binary Cohen's $\kappa$ by 0.13 but lowers the overall score by distorting the PHQ-9 regression; a frozen RoBERTa-large encoder does better at this sample size. Third, at fixed architecture, handcrafted clinical features (eGeMAPS, OpenFace action units) outperform generic deep features (wav2vec2, DenseNet) on the audio-visual tracks. The unified system reaches a cross-track G-Score of 0.482; with under 100 subjects per cohort, the limiting factors are the size of the representation and the calibration of the outputs, not the choice of architecture.
Source:https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.14961PreviousSemiCodec: Bridging Speech Tokenization and High-fidelity Reconstruction with Semi-discrete RepresentationsNextWord-Aligned Prosody Reflects Speaker Differences More Than Depression or PTSD Severity
Related posts
Most voted crypto projects on Coinvote, Oct 26 to Nov 1, 2026
0dev.to Data
Bluesky This Week — trending topics & AI brand mentions (2026-11-02)
0dev.to Data
Gemini 4 Carbon e DeepSeek V4.1 Flash Cyber: a Guerra Cibernética Autônoma e o Topo do Artificial Analysis
0dev.to Machine Learning
What can an AI agent do for you every day?
0dev.to Machine Learning
Mon modèle de paris semblait excellent sur 3 671 prédictions. Il n'a jamais battu le bookmaker.
0dev.to Machine Learning
HR manager LinkedIn About section examples you can adapt
0dev.to Career