Setting C is the benchmark's strictest transfer scenario. Models train on one or more waves and are evaluated on a held-out wave, combining the difficulty of unseen users with wave-level distributional shift in study conditions, sensor coverage, and label distributions.
Do models trained on one wave (or two waves) generalise to a different wave with different participants, different study conditions, and different sensor coverage?
This is the benchmark's primary cross-dataset transfer scenario.
Protocol: Leave-one-dataset-out. The wave designated as the target is held out entirely for evaluation; the remaining wave(s) form the source.
Two transfer structures are evaluated:
- 1 → 1 (single-source): train on wave A, evaluate on wave B. Six ordered pairs total: D1→D2, D1→D3, D2→D1, D2→D3, D3→D1, D3→D2.
- 2 → 1 (multi-source): train on the two remaining waves jointly, evaluate on the held-out third wave. Three scenarios total: {D1 ∪ D2} → D3, {D1 ∪ D3} → D2, {D2 ∪ D3} → D1.
A source-only validation split (~20% of the source data, per-user grouped) is reserved for Optuna model selection.
A (source, target, task) tuple is included only if:
- Both source and target have the task available (→ restricts Setting C to the shared core labels: Valence, Arousal, Stress, Disturbance).
- After alias unification + common-feature intersection, ≥ 500 aligned feature columns remain.
- Each split has both classes present.
Shared core labels only. D3-only rich affect-word labels are not used in Setting C because they cannot be aligned with D1 / D2.
Setting C applies, in order:
- Alias unification of categorical vocabularies so that equivalent semantic values collapse to the same one-hot column (Korean CALL_CNT labels,
UNKNOWNvs.UNDEFINEDbattery plug, etc. — see../../preprocessing/pipeline_decisions.md§ 6). - Common-feature intersection across source and target schemas: columns not present in every wave of the current scenario are dropped.
- Split-consistent scaling fit on the concatenated source training data, applied unchanged to validation and target.
Full details of which feature blocks survive which transfer scenario are in ../../docs/feature_alignment.md.
- Baselines + tabular NNs — XGBoost, LightGBM, MLP, ResNet, TabNet, SAINT, TabTransformer, FTTransformer, DCN.
- Domain generalisation (DG) — IRM, VREx, GroupDRO, MixStyle, MLDG, MASF, Fish, CSD, SagNet. Source domains are the individual source waves (or user-clusters within a single source for 1→1).
- Domain adaptation (DA) — DANN, CDAN, DAN, DeepCORAL, MCC, ADDA, MCD, JAN, SHOT, CBST, CGDM. Target = held-out wave; adaptation uses only unlabelled target features during training.
- Primary metric: AUROC on the target wave's labelled data.
- Diagnostics: Accuracy, Macro-F1, Precision, Recall.
- Model selection on source-only validation AUROC, Optuna with 30 trials.
- Each (source, target, task) tuple reported separately; averaged tables also produced.
- Baselines + tabular NNs →
../../basemodel-benchmarking/. - DG + DA methods →
../../domain_adaptation/.
Summary CSVs are written to ../results/tier_c_*.csv.
From the paper (shared-label family averages across all transfer scenarios):
| Family | Mean AUROC |
|---|---|
| Baseline + tabular | 0.550 |
| DG | 0.544 |
| DA | 0.532 |
Paper findings:
- Single-source (1→1): DG is typically strongest.
- Multi-source (2→1): strong baselines (especially gradient-boosted trees) are typically best.
- DA's advantage from Setting B does not carry through to Setting C — it is not consistently the strongest family under realistic cross-wave shift.
- Setting C is clearly the hardest of the three settings; performance drops materially relative to Setting A and Setting B.
Stress is the shared label most sensitive to cross-wave shift; Disturbance is the most stable.