arXiv AI By Muyun Jiang, Yi Ding, Wei Zhang, Jinbo Chen, Chenyu Liu, Zhenjie Yang, Yuxin Li, Jingyuan Chen, Yuhao Lu, Yong Li, Shuailei Zhang, Cuntai Guan

AutoBCI: Forecast-Guided Agentic Neural Architecture Discovery for EEG-Based Brain-Computer Interfaces

Read the original on arXiv AI →

AutoBCI is an agentic framework that discovers and selects EEG decoding architectures across diverse tasks such as emotion recognition, motor imagery, and sleep staging. It employs a Designer Agent that performs Pool‑Guided Architecture Discovery (PGAD) and a Forecaster Agent that uses Performance Estimation from Early Knowledge (PEEK) to predict full‑budget validation performance from early learning curves. Evaluated on 14 EEG datasets with six large language models, AutoBCI’s best architecture (Claude Opus 5.5) achieves 64.16% average test balanced accuracy, slightly surpassing the strongest baseline, and PEEK reduces prediction error by 38.1% compared to the best‑observed‑score baseline.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 28

AutoBCI: Forecast-Guided Agentic Neural Architecture Discovery for EEG-Based Brain--Computer Interfaces

AutoBCI is an agentic framework that uses a Designer Agent and a Forecaster Agent to discover and select EEG decoding architectures across diverse tasks such as emotion recognition, motor imagery, and sleep staging. The Designer Agent performs Pool‑Guided Architecture Discovery (PGAD) to generate and refine models, while the Forecaster Agent uses Performance Estimation from Early Knowledge (PEEK) to predict full‑budget validation performance from early learning curves. In experiments on 14 EEG datasets, AutoBCI with Claude Opus 5.5 achieved a 64.16% average test balanced accuracy, slightly surpassing the best baseline, and PEEK reduced prediction error by 38.1% compared to the best-observed-score baseline.

arXiv AI
Aug 6

BrainBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Comprehensive EEG Understanding

arXiv:2608. 04156v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Electroencephalography (EEG) analysis extends beyond assigning predefined labels to recordings; it requires workflows connecting natural-language instructions, signal processing, quantitative evidence, and scientific interpretation.

By Yangxuan Zhou, Sha Zhao, Yuning Chen, Chen Wu, Jiquan Wang, Shijian Li, Gang Pan
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jul 6

EEG-SpikeAgent: Agentic Closed-Loop Program Synthesis for Automated EEG Spike Detection

Automated detection of interictal epileptiform discharges in scalp electroencephalography (EEG) is clinically important, but recent high-performing deep-learning models often trade interpretability for accuracy. We introduce EEG-SpikeAgent, a closed-loop program-synthesis framework that uses a large language model (LLM) agentic system to generate signal-processing features for spike detection in scalp EEG.

arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 2

OmniEEG-Bench: A Standardized Evaluation Benchmark for EEG Foundation Models

arXiv:2606. 00815v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Electroencephalography (EEG) supports a variety of brain-computer interface (BCI) tasks ranging from brain-state monitoring to human-LLM interactions.

By Ziling Lu, Zongsheng Li, Xinke Shen, Kexin Lou, Yingyue Xin, Xiaoqi Chen, Shinan Wang, Xiang Chen, Jiahao Fan, Chenyu Huang, Xin Xu, Zhoujie Hou, Chen Wei, Quanying Liu
arXiv AI
Oct 26

Controlled Evaluation of EEG Foundation Models: Random Initialisation, Band-Power and Validation-Selected Probes

The paper evaluates five publicly released EEG foundation models and an in‑house JEPA‑style model using a protocol that includes three key controls: an untrained encoder, spectral band‑power features, and a probe layer selected without test‑set look‑ahead. The study finds that selecting the probe layer by test score can modestly improve peak performance and alter the peak‑versus‑output relationship, that random initialization can match or surpass pretraining on certain tasks, and that full fine‑tuning rarely yields gains beyond seed variability. These findings lead the authors to propose four new reporting practices and to release all experimental results for re‑analysis.

By Mingyu Jeon, Suwan Cho, Jae Young Suh