Cross-Subject Emotion Recognition with Sparsely-Labeled Peripheral Physiological Data Using SHAP-Explained Tree Ensembles

Abstract: There are still many challenges of emotion recognition using physiological data despite the substantial progress made recently. In this paper, we attempted to address two major challenges. First, in order to deal with the sparsely-labeled physiological data, we first decomposed the raw physiological data using signal spectrum analysis, based on which we extracted both complexity and energy features. Such a procedure helped reduce noise and improve feature extraction effectiveness. Second, in order to improve the explainability of the machine learning models in emotion recognition with physiological data, we proposed Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM) and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) for emotion prediction and model explanation, respectively. The LightGBM model outperformed the eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) model on the public Database for Emotion Analysis using Physiological signals (DEAP) with f1-scores of 0.814, 0.823, and 0.860 for binary classification of valence, arousal, and liking, respectively, with cross-subject validation using eight peripheral physiological signals. Furthermore, the SHAP model was able to identify the most important features in emotion recognition, and revealed the relationships between the predictor variables and the response variables in terms of their main effects and interaction effects. Therefore, the results of the proposed model not only had good performance using peripheral physiological data, but also gave more insights into the underlying mechanisms in recognizing emotions.

\section{Introduction}

\IEEEPARstart{A}{ffect} is one essential element in the human-computer interaction process \cite{picard2000affective} and can be included as a design parameter to optimize task performance and user experience in various areas \cite{zhou2014prospect}. For example, the Yerkes-Dodson law identified an inverted-U shape relationship between task performance and arousal \cite{yerkes1908relation}, participants' positive valence was found to improve their takeover performance in automated driving \cite{du2020examining}, and recognizing and understanding emotions were able to help improve human-robot interaction \cite{chen2017dynamic}.

In order to support affective computing, one basic question is how to recognize emotions during the interaction process \cite{zhou2011affect}. Researchers explored different types of data to recognize emotions, including self-reported data, behavioral measures (e.g., facial expressions \cite{zhou2020fine} and conversational data \cite{sun2019design}), and physiological measures (e.g., facial electromyography (EMG), skin conductance response (SCR), electrocardiogram (ECG), electroencephalography (EEG)) \cite{zhou2011affect,zhou2014emotion,zhou2020driver}. Although self-reported methods are easy to operate, they suffer from recall and selective reporting biases \cite{stone1994ecological} and interference with the interaction process \cite{zhou2020driver}. The progress on emotion recognition using facial expressions and speeches is promising due to the recent advancement in deep learning (e.g., \cite{zhao2019speech,zhou2020fine}). Nevertheless, such affective displays are subject to social display rules and the expressions might not be consistent with their real emotions \cite{picard2000affective,frantzidis2010classification}. By contrast, physiological measures are less vulnerable to voluntary control and allow the system to evaluate users' emotions in real time continuously \cite{zhou2011affect}. The continuous fashion in recognizing emotion is consistent with human perception on emotions in social interaction \cite{schiano2004categorical}, and the real-time characterization is preferable for human-computer interaction systems that aim to fulfill users' emotional needs by addressing their emotions in real time \cite{picard2000affective,zhou2013affective,zhou2020emotional}. Therefore, many studies have successfully built machine learning models based on physiological measures (e.g., \cite{kim2008emotion,zhou2011affect,walter2013transsituational,6846297, wen2014emotion,ma2019emotion,romeo2019multiple,lan2019domain,li2020multisource,chen2021personal}).

Correspondingly, an increasing number of datasets (e.g.,\cite{koelstra2011deap,soleymani2011multimodal,zheng2018emotionmeter}) have been created to train models to recognize emotions automatically using physiological data. However, one of the biggest challenges in training models is to label the physiological data. Unlike other databases that have one label for each sample (e.g., facial expression images in AffectNet \cite{mollahosseini2017affectnet}), physiological data were continuously recorded when the participant was involved in an emotional episode. Thus, it is extremely time-consuming to label the data frame by frame, which is impossible \cite{romeo2019multiple}. Many datasets only had an overall label for a continuous segment of physiological data recorded in the whole emotional event, such as the Database for Emotion Analysis using Physiological signals (DEAP)  \cite{koelstra2011deap}, which was only sparsely labeled using self-reports or expert observation. Here sparse labelling \cite{romeo2019multiple} was used to indicate that there was only one or a few static labels annotating a segment of physiological data, which was supposed to correspond to dynamic changes in emotional states (i.e., continuous labels).
Self-reported labelling was often conducted once (due to possible interference in the interaction process) after the participants finished the interaction with the stimuli, such as video or image viewing \cite{zhou2011affect,zhou2014emotion,koelstra2011deap} and game playing \cite{yannakakis2008entertainment}. Labeling by expert observation can potentially increase the number of the labels in a segment of physiological data, and multiple experts should be involved in order to increase reliability of the labels (e.g., \cite{li2017automatic}). However, both of these methods only label the most salient one within the whole emotional episode rather than the dynamic changes of emotions of the participants. Such labels tend to be noisy when the most salient period only accounts for a small period of the whole labeled episode \cite{romeo2019multiple}.

Another challenge for many machine learning models in emotion recognition is that they are black-box models (especially for deep learning models) and the knowledge learned by them is hidden. For one thing, without revealing the knowledge learned, the acceptance and trust in such models can be jeopardized \cite{doshi2017towards}, especially in high risk areas such as medicine \cite{lundberg2018explainable,yan2020interpretable} and transportation \cite {zhou2020driver,AYOUB2021102}.
For another, when such knowledge is revealed, it can help distinguish between different emotions. For instance, Weitz et al. \cite{weitz2019deep} used layer-wise relevance propagation and local interpretable model-agnostic explanations (LIME) to understand the decision made by a deep neural network, so that they were able to distinguish facial expressions caused by pain and disgust in order for the nurses to give better care for their patients.

Given the above challenges, the objective of this paper is to recognize emotions from sparsely-labeled peripheral physiological data with explanations. First, we applied singular spectrum analysis (SSA) to decompose the physiological data into individual components, and extracted three types of features from selected components, including sample entropy, fuzzy entropy, and energy. SSA has been widely applied in time series analysis and it can decompose the raw signal into a small number of independent and interpretable components (e.g., periodic components, slow-varying components, and noise components) \cite{elsner2013singular}, and it has been proved to improve the performance of classification models built on physiological data by removing random noise and data reconstruction at the same time. Entropy measures have also been widely used for feature extraction of physiological measures for classification purposes with good performance. For example, Lu et al. \cite{lu2020entropy} extracted entropy features from SSA components of various physiological measures, including EEG, EMG, and ECG, across multiple classification scenarios and the performance was much better than extracting features directly from the raw physiological signals. Particularly, sample entropy was used to predict arrhythmic risk using ECG signals \cite{rajesh2017classification} and to recognize emotions using EEG \cite{lu2020dynamic}, fuzzy entropy was used to detect epileptic seizure with EEG signals \cite{kumar2014epileptic}, sample entropy and fuzzy entropy were used to predict eye states using EEG signals, physical actions using EMG signals, and heart states using ECG signals \cite{lu2020entropy}. The energy feature was similar to the power spectral density, which was also used in emotion recognition \cite{jenke2014feature}.
Second, in order to build explainable machine learning models, we applied tree-based ensemble models, including eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) \cite{chen2016xgboost} and Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM) \cite{ke2017lightgbm} and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) \cite{lundberg2018explainable,lundberg2020local}. The entropy and energy features extracted from SSA components were used to train the XGBoost and LightGBM models. The LightGBM model was found to perform better than the XGBoost model, and we used SHAP to explain the LightGBM model by identifying the most significant features and their main and interaction effects. Such ensemble methods have proved to perform better than other traditional machine learning models, such as support vector machines (SVMs), due to the fact that ensemble learning overcomes the shortcomings of single classifiers by combining dissimilar classifiers \cite{9652403,zhou2022predicting,zhou2021using,ayoub2021modeling}. SHAP is based on the game theory to explain the output of the LightGBM model by examining feature contributions in a coalition using the classic Shapley values \cite{shapley1953contributions} and it has three desirable mathematical properties, i.e., local accuracy, missingness, and consistency, which provide consistent and locally accurate explanations \cite{lundberg2017unified,lundberg2018explainable}. However, the computational requirements make it difficult to apply to many machine learning models with a large number of samples, especially for deep learning models. Lundberg et al. \cite{lundberg2020local} proposed an algorithm to explain tree-based models efficiently using SHAP. Hence, by making use of SHAP and LightGBM, we were able to understand the patterns captured by the LightGBM model in recognizing emotions, by  helping select and explain the most important SSA components of their main effects and interaction effects. In addition, both the machine learning models were validated using a leave-one-subject-out (LOSO) scheme (i.e., user-independent), thus the hidden knowledge revealed tended to be more generalizable.

In summary, the contributions of this paper are described as follows:
\begin{itemize}
  \item We decomposed the peripheral physiological data into individual SSA components and extracted both entropy and energy features to deal with the sparse label issue. Such a method explores a wide range of feature space to improve emotion representation across a wide range of signals while removing random noise at the same time.
  \item We built explainable machine learning models using tree-based ensemble machine learning models (i.e., XGBoost and LightGBM) for emotion recognition, and used SHAP to identify the most important SSA components to improve our results with LOSO cross-validation. Such a feature selection method provides useful information and implications on the parameter selection in SSA decomposition.
  \item We identified the main effects and interaction effects that showed the hidden relationships between the emotion representations and the most important features identified. Such insights were  used to improve the performance of the proposed models and have the potential to pave the way for future applications with emotion recognition in different domains.
\end{itemize}

\section{Related Work}
\subsection{Emotion Recognition Using Physiological Data}
Emotions can be recognized from physiological data collected from the central nervous system and the peripheral nervous system. The most frequently used signal from the central nervous system is EEG (e.g., \cite{koelstra2011deap,yin2017recognition,ma2019emotion}) while there are a large number of signals that can be collected from the peripheral nervous system, such as SCR, EMG, electrooculargram (EOG), and ECG (e.g., \cite{picard2001toward,zhou2011affect,romeo2019multiple}). In order to recognize emotions, various machine learning models were applied. Picard et al. \cite{picard2001toward} used SCR, EMG, respiration data, and blood volume pulse of a single participant to predict eight emotions with Fisher projection with 81\%  accuracy. Liu et al. \cite{liu2008physiology} used ECG, photoplethysmogram (PPG), phonocardiogram, SCR, and facial EMG to recognize three emotions using SVMs, which obtained 82.9\% accuracy in recognizing emotions from autistic children. Many researchers made use of the public DEAP dataset for binary classification. For example, Yin et al. \cite{yin2017recognition} applied an ensemble classifier using stacked autoencoder and extracted 425 features from EEG, EOG, GSR, PPG, EMG, respiration, and skin temperature and obtained f1-scores of 77.98\%  for arousal recognition and of 79.50\% for valence recognition. Lin et al. \cite{lin2017deep} proposed a convolutional neural network (CNN) by transforming EEG data into image data with time and frequency information, and other hand-crafted features from peripheral physiological data with 87.30\% accuracy (f1-score: 72.84\%) for arousal recognition and 85.5\% accuracy (f1-score: 80.06\%) for valence recognition. Ma et al. \cite{ma2019emotion} proposed a deep learning model named multimodal residual long-short-term memory (LSTM) with an accuracy of 92.87\% and 92.30\% for binary arousal and valence classification. Despite the good performance of the deep learning models, these models were user-dependent, i.e., models trained using data from one specific participant, and thus were less likely to generalize across participants due to potential individual differences.

Other researchers built user-independent models by mixing data from multiple participants with $k$-fold cross validation. For example, Nasoz et al. \cite{nasoz2004emotion} used SCR, skin temperature, and heart rate to recognize six emotions from 29 participants and obtained the best accuracy of 83\% using feedforward neural networks trained by Marquardt back propagation. Frantzidis \cite{frantzidis2010classification} applied a decision tree model with a Mahalanobis distance classifier to recognize four emotions with EEG and SCR data from 28 participants with 78\% accuracy. Zhou et al. \cite{zhou2011affect} proposed machine learning models using rough set to recognize seven discrete emotions elicited by visual stimuli from 42 participants. They proposed gender-specific, culture-specific, and general models and found that models built from female participants (i.e., gender-specific) had the best performance of 78.0\% while general participant-independent models only had 63.5\% in terms of f1-scores. Wen et al. \cite{wen2014emotion} used a multi-variant correlation method of various physiological signals, including blood oxygen saturation, SCR, and heart rate to identify useful features, based on which a random forest model was proposed to recognize four emotions with 74\% accuracy.  Ringeval et al. \cite{ringeval2015prediction} proposed an LSTM regression model by combining audio, visual (facial expressions) and  physiological (ECG, SCR) data from the Remote Collaborative and Affective Interactions (RECOLA) dataset  \cite{ringeval2013introducing}, and the concordance correlation coefficients were 0.804 for arousal and 0.528 for valence. Li et al. \cite{li2016analysis} included group-based individual response specificity in building emotion recognition models with ECG, SCR, and PPG and their performance was better (f1-score: 0.75) than a general model (f1-score: 0.67) without such information. Hassan et al. \cite{hassan2019human} proposed a deep belief network and an SVM model and achieved 89.53\% accuracy on the DEAP dataset for recognizing 5 discrete emotions using EMG, PPG and SCR data.

The user-independent models with $k$-fold cross-validation mentioned above still assume that the samples are independent and identically distributed. However, the samples from one participant are actually correlated biologically and temporally \cite{dehghani2019subject}. Another type of validation strategy that tends to have better generalization is LOSO cross-validation. In this process, one subject is randomly selected for testing while the rest ones are used for training the model and this procedure is repeated until all the subjects are used for testing \cite{koul2018cross}. This validation strategy is especially useful for the model to predict emotions of new individuals \cite{saeb2017need}.
Romeo et al. \cite{romeo2019multiple} proposed a multiple instance learning strategy with SVMs to recognize emotions using physiological measures from the DEAP dataset. The multiple instance learning treated the data as negative if all the instances were negative and positive if at least one of them was positive. They stated that using the LOSO cross-validation, the results were not satisfactory on the DEAP dataset and thus were not reported. On their own dataset, they had the best binary classification accuracy of 69.1\% for arousal and 68.0\% for valence. Kandemir et al. \cite{kandemir2014multi} proposed a multi-task multi-view learning model with SVMs. They reported their LOSO cross-validation performance on the DEAP dataset using both EEG and peripheral physiological measures was 60\% (accuracy) and 56\% (f1-score) for valence, 58\% (accuracy) and 53\% (f1-score) for arousal, and 67\%(accuracy) and 51\% (f1-score) for liking. Zhong et al. \cite{zhong2017emotion} proposed a temporal information preserving framework to identify the relations between physiological data and emotions over time and by combining both physiological and facial expression data, they obtained the best accuracy for valence and arousal as 70.53\% and 73.53\% on the MAHNOB-HCI dataset using LOSO cross-validation\cite{soleymani2011multimodal}.
Gupta et al. \cite{gupta2019cross} proposed a flexible analytic wavelet transform to explore channel specific EEG signals in the forms of different sub-band forms for cross-subject emotion recognition with random forest and support vector machines. Another way to help improve the performance of LOSO is to minimize individual differences. Chen et al. \cite{chen2021personal} proposed a personal-Zscore feature processing method, which was found to improve the representation ability of emotion across different subjects, which improved emotion recognition on the SEED dataset. Li et al. \cite{li2020multisource} proposed a transfer learning method that reduced the EEG differences between the target (i.e., the new person's data in the testing set) and each source (i.e., the existing participants' data in the training set) that improved three-category classification accuracy on SEED dataset by 12.72\%.  Lan et al. \cite{lan2019domain} proposed a domain adaptation technique to reduce cross-subject variance and they improved the accuracy from the baseline by 7.25\%-13.40\% on the DEAP and SEED datasets.

\subsection{Explainable Machine Learning Models}
We have witnessed great successes of machine learning models in various areas as they can capture the hidden domain knowledge and make predictions for unseen data. Nevertheless, these models can be less acceptable and trusted during the deployment stage without showing the captured domain knowledge, i.e., explainability \cite{doshi2017towards}. Simpler machine learning models, such as linear regression models and decision trees are explainable. However, the majority of the other machine learning models (e.g., SVMs, LSTM, deep belief networks, CNNs) reviewed above in emotion recognition are black-box models and thus are not explainable. Although the importance of explainability in decision making with high risks is greater (e.g., medicine \cite{lundberg2018explainable,yan2020interpretable}, transportation \cite {zhou2020driver}, and misinformation \cite{ayoub2021combat}), it is still useful in different affective computing applications (e.g.,\cite{weitz2019deep}). In addition, the choice between two types of models, i.e., simple, explainable models and complicated, black-box models tends to be easily made in emotion recognition as simpler models are not able to have good performance. Therefore, the only way to understand the captured domain knowledge is to apply post-hoc explainability to black-box models \cite{murdoch2019definitions}. Very few studies attempted to explain models in emotion recognition in the literature. LIME was used to explain a CNN model to distinguish between pain and disgust facial expressions that helped nursing staff identify pain episodes of patients by monitoring their facial expressions \cite{weitz2019deep}.

\section{Methods}
\begin{figure*} [htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{Figures/Method.pdf}
\caption{The major steps involved in the proposed method, including 1) data cleaning, 2) feature extraction, 3) emotion recognition, 4) model explanation, and 5) feature selection.}
\label{fig:method}
\end{figure*}
The proposed method has five major steps (see Fig. \ref{fig:method}), including 1) data cleaning, 2) feature extraction, 3) emotion recognition, 4) model explanation,  and 5) feature selection as described below. Note the third step and the fourth step were conducted twice before and after the fifth step in order to select the optimal features for best performance.

\subsection{Dataset and Data Preprocessing}
In this paper, the DEAP dataset \cite{koelstra2011deap} was used to demonstrate the proposed method with eight peripheral physiological signals, including horizontal EOG (i.e., hEOG $=$ hEOG\_1 $-$ hEOG\_2), vertical EOG (i.e., vEOG $=$ vEOG\_1 $-$ vEOG\_2), zygomaticus major EMG (i.e., zEMG $=$ zEMG\_1 $-$ zEMG\_2), trapezius EMG (i.e., tEMG $=$ tEMG\_1 $-$ tEMG\_2), SCR, PPG, respiration (Resp), and skin temperature (Temp). The data were downsampled from 512 Hz to 128 Hz, which was adequate and efficient for processing the peripheral physiological signals and this has been widely used in previous studies \cite{piho2018mutual, romeo2019multiple}. The locations of each electrode during the data collection process are shown in Table \ref{tab:placement}.

\begin{table}[]
\centering
\caption{Placement of electrodes in collecting physiological data in the DEAP dataset \cite{koelstra2011deap}.}
\label{tab:placement}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\hline
Signal         & Electrode placement                  \\ \hline
hEOG\_1        & to the left of left eye              \\
hEOG\_2        & to the right of right eye            \\
vEOG\_1        & above right eye                      \\
vEOG\_2        & below right eye                      \\
zEMG\_1        & $ +/-$ 1cm from left corner of mouth \\
zEMG\_2        & $+/-$ 1cm below zEMG\_1              \\
tEMG\_1        & left shoulder blade                  \\
tEMG\_2        & $+/-$ 1cm below tEMG\_1              \\
GSR            & left middle and ring fingers          \\
Respiration    & respiration belt around chest        \\
PPG & left thumb                           \\
Temperature    & left pinky                           \\ \hline
\end{tabular}%
\end{table}
A number of 32 participants watched 40 music videos with 60 seconds long and rated on valence, arousal, and liking. Between each trial, there were five seconds of fixations on screen before the trial and three seconds fixations on screen after the playback of each music video. In this study, we included data of the first three seconds with fixations on the screen as the baseline and of the rest 60 seconds of video watching as the usable signals. There was a short break after watching 20 videos and the estimated length of the experiment was about 90 minutes. Thus, there were $40 \times 32 = 1280$ samples in total. The labels used in this paper included valence, arousal, and liking. Following previous studies, they were binarized by thresholding at 5 from the 9-point Likert scale (e.g., \cite{kandemir2014multi, romeo2019multiple}).

First, the samples were smoothed with a moving average filter with a span of 64 data points (i.e., 0.5 second since the signals had a sampling rate of 128 Hz) for SCR and Temp and of 5 data points for other signals. Second, the signals were baseline corrected, i.e., the 60 seconds of the usable data were subtracted from the mean of the baseline. Third, each sample was normalized by subtracting the mean and divided by the standard deviation. Last, each sample was detrended quadratically with Matlab 2019b (Mathworks, Natick, MA), except Temp and SCR. Ledalab was used to decompose SCR into a phasic component and a tonic component \cite{benedek2010decomposition}.

\subsection{Signal Decomposition with SSA}
The decomposition of the physiological signals using SSA was as follows \cite{elsner2013singular}. Each sample was represented as a time series signal $X_N=[x_1,x_2,...,x_N]$ of length $N = 60 \times 128 = 7680$. The first step of SSA is to transform $X_N$ into a multi-dimensional Hankel matrix $Y = [Y_1,Y_2,...,Y_K]$ with $Y_i = [x_i,x_{i+1},...,x_{i+L-1}]^T$, where $K=N-L+1$. This process was named as embedding and its parameter is the window length $L$ and $2\leq L\leq N$. In this research, $L$ was set at 12 based on previous studies \cite{lu2020entropy}. Then, singular value decomposition was applied to the matrix, $S=YY^T$. Assuming $\lambda_1\geq\lambda_2\geq ... \geq\lambda_L$ were the eigenvalues of $S$ and $U_1,U_2,...,U_L$ was the orthonormal basis of the eigenvectors of $S$. By setting $V_i = Y^TU_i/sqrt(\lambda_i)$ and the rank of $Y$ as $d = max(i,for \lambda_i>0)$, $Y$ was represented as
\begin{equation} \label{1}
Y = Y_1+Y_2+,...,+Y_d,
\end{equation}
where $Y_i=sqrt(\lambda_i)U_iV_i^T$.

In the reconstruction stage, it had two steps, including eigentriple grouping and diagonal averaging. First, the matrices $Y_1,Y_2,...,Y_d$ were divided into $m$ disjoint groups, i.e., $Y = Y_{I1}+,...,Y_{Im}$, where $I = \{i_1,...,i_p\}$ is a group of indices selected from $ {1,...,d}$ so that $Y_I = Y_{i1}+,...,+Y_{ip}$. Then, diagonal averaging converted the matrix $Y_{Ik}$, where $1\leq k \leq m$, into a time series by averaging $x_{ij}$ along the diagonal of the matrix so that $i+j=constant$. For the $k$-th reconstructed time series, $Y^{k} = [y_1^k,...,y_N^k]$ and the original time series $X_N=[x_1,x_2,...,x_N]$ were reconstructed as a sum as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{1}
x_{n}=\sum_{k=1}^{m}y_n^k,n=1,...,N
\end{equation}

\begin{figure} [bpt]
	\centering
	\subfloat[\label{fig:PPG1}]{\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{Figures/SSA_PPG1.png}}
	\vspace{0pt}
	\subfloat[\label{fig:PPG2}]{\includegraphics[width=.95\linewidth]{Figures/SSA_PPG2.png}}
    \caption{An example of decomposed PPG signals using SSA: (a) The 12 principal components (i.e., PC in the figure) derived in one PPG sample and the first four were used for reconstruction while the rest ones were considered as noise; (b) PPG reconstructed components (i.e., RC in the figure) and the comparison between the reconstructed PPG signal (using the RCs in the top 4 panels) and the original PPG signal (the fifth panel from the top). Note the reconstructed PPG signal with RCs 1-4 was so close to the original PPG signal that there were no visible differences due to the scale of the figure. We also added the sixth panel (from the top) that showed the comparison between the reconstructed PPG signal with only RC 1 and the original PPG signal.}\label{fig:SSA}
\end{figure}

In this research, we used the pymssa package in Python (\url{https://github.com/kieferk/pymssa}) for SSA implementation and only kept a selected number of components to remove the noise, which proved to be effective for feature extraction \cite{lu2020entropy}. Assuming $X_N = S_N + R_N$, we only selected $I_k = \{1,...,s\}, s < d$ in order to remove the noise component $R_N$. We used the formula of singular value hard thresholding to remove the noise components, which proved to be able to recover matrices with bounded nuclear forms with the best possible asymptotic mean squared error \cite{6846297}.
For example, Fig. \ref{fig:SSA} (a) shows the 12 principal  components of a PPG signal and the formula of singular value hard thresholding kept the first four components for reconstruction and Fig. \ref{fig:SSA} (b) shows the four reconstructed components (the top four panels) and the comparison between the original signal and the reconstructed one (the fifth panel) with four reconstructed components. Similarly, the first two, two, one, three, two, two, and one component(s) were kept for hEOG, vEOG, zEMG, tEMG, SCR, Resp, and Temp, respectively, for reconstruction and feature extraction. Note the SCR signal used for SSA decomposition was the phasic component of the SCR data and the tonic component was used as the second component for feature extraction. Thus, a total number of 17 SSA components were extracted and we calculated their sample entropy, fuzzy entropy, and energy, which resulted in a total number of 51 features.

\subsection{Feature Extraction}
Three features were extracted for each component derived in the previous step, including sample entropy, fuzzy entropy, and energy. Sample entropy and fuzzy entropy are complexity measures. Sample entropy is based on approximate entropy, which is used to measure the degree of regularity and classify complex systems of both deterministic chaotic and stochastic processes  \cite{pincus1991approximate}. However, it is heavily dependent on the data length (at least 1000 data points) and can lead to inconsistency results for short and noisy data \cite{richman2000physiological}. Sample entropy is an improved version of approximate entropy by removing data length dependency and was widely used as features extracted from physiological signals for classification purposes \cite{richman2000physiological,lu2020dynamic,lu2020entropy}. Fuzzy entropy makes fuzzy measurement of signals by introducing a fuzzy membership function to avoid abrupt changes, which can be especially useful for characterizing EMG signals \cite{chen2007characterization}.

Given an SSA component, $Y^{k} = [y_1^k,...,y_N^k]$, a non-negative integer $m\leq N$ as the embedding dimension, and a positive real number $r$ as the tolerance, we calculated
the distance $d[Y_m^k(i),Y_m^k(j)]= max_{k=1,2,...,m,i\neq j}|Y_m^k(i+k-1)-Y_m^k(j+k-1)|$, and sample entropy was calculated as \cite{richman2000physiological}
\begin{equation} \label{SampEn}
SampEn =  -log \frac{A}{B},
\end{equation}
where $A$ was the number of template vector pairs that satisfied $d[Y_{m+1}^k(i),Y_{m+1}^k(j)]<r$ and $B$ was the number of template vector pairs that satisfied $d[Y_{m}^k(i),Y_{m}^k(j)]<r$.

In calculating fuzzy entropy, $Y_m^k(i)$ was defined as  $[y_i^k,y_{i+1}^k,...,y_{i+m-1}^k]-y^0_i$, where $y^0_i$ was the baseline defined as $ \frac{1}{m}\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}y_{i+j}^k$. The distance $d[Y_m^k(i),Y_m^k(j)]= max_{k=0,1,...,m-1,i\neq j}|Y_m^k(i+k-1)-Y_m^k(j+k-1)|$. Given a non-negative integer $n$, the similarity degree $D_m^{k}(i,j)$ between $Y_m^k(i)$ and $Y_m^k(j)$ was computed as $D_m^{k}(i,j)=exp(-(d[Y_m^k(i),Y_m^k(j)])^n/r)$. Then we used the following to calculate fuzzy entropy \cite{chen2007characterization}
\begin{equation} \label{FuzzyEn}
FuzzyEn=ln\Phi^{m}(n,r)- ln\Phi^{m+1}(n,r),
\end{equation}
where $ln\Phi^{m}(n,r) = \frac{1}{N-m}\sum_{i=1}^{N-m}(\frac{1}{N-m-1}\sum_{j=1}^{N-m}D_m^{k}(i,j))$.
According to \cite{lu2020entropy}, we used embedding dimension, $m=2$ and tolerance, $r=0.15$ in calculating entropy ($n=2$ for fuzzy entropy) measures for each SSA component derived from the physiological data. In addition, energy was also calculated for the $k$-th SSA component of a physiological signal using
\begin{equation} \label{Energy}
E=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}(y_i^k)^2,
\end{equation}
where $N=7680$ was the number of the data points in the SSA component.

\subsection{LightGBM-based Classification Model}
LightGBM \cite{ke2017lightgbm} is an ensemble machine learning model based on the technique of gradient boosting decision trees (GBDTs), which is one of the best performing models in machine learning \cite{friedman2001greedy}. LightGBM combines the prediction results of multiple decision trees by iteratively adding them together as follows:

\begin{equation} \label{GBDT}
    \begin{split}
    \hat{y}_i^{0} &= 0\\
    \hat{y}_i^{1} &= f_1(x_i)=\hat{y}_i^{0}+f_1(x_i)\\
    ...\\
    \hat{y}_i^{s} &= \sum_{k=1}^s f_k(x_i)=\hat{y}_i^{s-1}+f_s(x_i),
    \end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{y}_i^{s}$ is the predicted result for the $i$-th instance at $s$-th iteration and $f_s$ is the learned model for the $s$-th decision tree. This process aimed to minimize a loss function with a regularization term, i.e.,
\begin{equation} \label{GBDT_Obj}
L^{s}(\theta) = \sum_{i}^{n}l(y_i,\hat{y}_i^{s})+\sum_{s=1}^{S}\Omega(f_s),
\end{equation}
where the loss function was binary logloss in this paper and the regularization term controlled the complexity of the model to reduce overfitting. During the training process, GBDTs need to recursively split the data by scanning information gain of each data instance, which is slow when both the sample size and number of the features are big. LightGBM uses a leaf-wise strategy to split the data that has the most information gain using gradient-based one-side sampling (GOSS). The GOSS strategy keeps the samples that contribute the most to information gain with larger gradients and randomly drop those with small gradients. This notion both improves the accuracy and efficiency. LightGBM also uses exclusive feature bundling by combining sparse features that are almost exclusive to each other to further reduce computational resources. These two features made the LightGBM successful and had better performance than XGBoost \cite{chen2016xgboost} across a range of publicly available datasets \cite{ke2017lightgbm}. In this paper, we used the following parameters involved in the training and prediction process of LightGBM: objective: binary, boosting\_type: goss, metric: binary\_logloss, early\_stopping\_rounds: 30, and num\_boost\_round: 500 and used random search for 300 iterations to pick the best combinations among the following parameters, including learning\_rate between 0.01 and 0.5, sub\_feature between 0 and 1, num\_leaves between 5 and 20, min\_data between 10 and 100, max\_depth between 5 and 20. Likewise, we used the following parameters involved in XGBoost as a comparison, including objective: binary:logistic, metric: logloss, early\_stopping\_rounds: 30, and num\_boost\_round: 500 and used random search for 300 iterations to pick the best combinations among the following parameters, including learning rate between 0.01 and 0.5, subsample between 0 and 1, colsample\_bytree between 0 and 1, max\_depth between 5 and 20, and min\_child\_weight between 1 and 10.

\begin{table*}[]
\centering
\caption{Performance comparison between XGBoost, LightGBM, and other methods. }
\label{tab:performance}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Model & Valence & & Arousal &&Liking && EEG & Validation \\ & accuracy    & f1-score    & accuracy    & f1-score    & accuracy    & f1-score    &   &              \\ \hline
XGBoost (all)   & .518 (.016) & .759 (.012) & .542 (.019) & .773 (.021) & .602 (.017) & .825 (.012) & 0 & LOSO         \\
XGBoost (best)  & .570 (.014) & .772 (.012) & .585 (.022) & .785 (.018) & .645 (.020) & .837 (.012) & 0 & LOSO         \\
LightGBM (all)  & .588 (.013) & .804 (.011) & .613 (.022) & .816 (.016) & .667 (.019) & .855 (.011) & 0 & LOSO         \\
\textbf{LightGBM (best)} & .616 (.013) & .814 (.009) & .651 (.018) & .823 (.015) & .691 (.017) & .860 (.011) & 0 & LOSO         \\
SVM \cite{kandemir2014multi}             & .570        & .550        & .560        & .510        & .670        & .450        & 2 & LOSO         \\
MKL \cite{kandemir2014multi}             & .590        & .550        & .560        & .530        & .660        & .510        & 2 & LOSO         \\
MT-MKL (L1) \cite{kandemir2014multi}    & .590        & .550        & .580        & .520        & .660        & .510        & 2 & LOSO         \\
MT-MKL (L2) \cite{kandemir2014multi}    & .600        & .560        & .560        & .460        & .650        & .420        & 2 & LOSO         \\
MESAE \cite{yin2017recognition}     & .830        & .795        & .842        & .780        & -           & -           & 2 & UD (10-fold) \\
CNN \cite{lin2017deep}       & .855        & .801        & .873        & .782        & -           & -           & 2 & UD (10-fold) \\
Bimodal-LSTM \cite{tang2017multimodal}   & .838 (.050) & -           & .832 (.026) & -           & -           & -           & 2 & UD (10-fold) \\
MESAE \cite{yin2017recognition}          & .762        & .724        & .772        & .690        & -           & -           & 2 & 2-fold       \\
Naive Bayes \cite{koelstra2011deap}    & .627        & .605        & .570        & .533        & .591        & .538        & 0 & LOO          \\
Naive Bayes \cite{koelstra2011deap}   & .576        & .563        & .620        & .583        & .554        & .502        & 1 & LOO          \\ \hline
\end{tabular}%
\\
Our results were reported in mean (standard error). "All" indicates when all the features were included and "Best" indicates the best performance when a selected number of the features were included. Other methods were also included for comparisons. However, due to the differences of the experimental settings, it is cautious to directly compare them. Note the column EEG indicates if EEG data from the DEAP dataset were included, where '0' indicated EEG data were not included, '1', indicated only EEG data were included, and '2' indicated both EEG and peripheral physiological data were included. Multiple validation methods were used, where LOSO meant Leave-one-subject-out, UD (10-fold) meant user-dependent (only models from one specific participant were built with) 10-fold cross-validation, and LOO meant leave-one-out cross-validation. MKL = Multiple-Kernel Learning, MT-MKL = Multiple-Task Multiple-Kernel Learning), MESAE = Multiple-fusion-layer based Ensemble classifier of Stacked AutoEncoder.
\end{table*}

\begin{comment}
\begin{table*}[]
\centering
\caption{Performance comparison between XGBoost, LightGBM, and other methods. }
\label{tab:performance}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline
\multirow{Models} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Valence} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Arousal} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Liking} \\ \cline{2-7}
 & accuracy & f1-score & accuracy & f1-score & accuracy & f1-score \\ \hline
XGBoost (all) & 0.518 (.016) & 0.759 (.012) & 0.542 (.019) & 0.773 (.021) & 0.602 (.017) & 0.825 (.012) \\
XGBoost (best) & 0.570 (.014) & 0.772 (.012) & 0.585 (.022) & 0.785 (.018) & 0.645 (.020) & 0.837 (.012) \\
LightGBM (all) & 0.588 (.013) & 0.804 (.011) & 0.613 (.022) & 0.816 (.016) & 0.667 (.019) & 0.855 (.011) \\
\textbf{LightGBM (best)} & 0.616 (.013) & 0.814 (.009) & 0.651 (.018) & 0.823 (.015) & 0.691 (.017) & 0.860 (.011) \\
SVM & 0.570 & 0.550 & 0.560 & 0.510 & 0.670 & 0.450 \\
MKL & 0.590 & 0.550 & 0.560 & 0.530 & 0.660 & 0.510 \\
MT-MKL (L1) & 0.590 & 0.550 & 0.580 & 0.520 & 0.660 & 0.510 \\
MT-MKL (L2) & 0.600 & 0.560 & 0.560 & 0.460 & 0.650 & 0.420 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}

The results were reported in mean (standard error). Note the standard error was generated in the 32 rounds of the accuracy and f1-scores in the LOSO cross-validation process. "All" indicates when all the features were included and "Best" indicates the best performance when a selected number of the features were included. The SVM, MKL (multiple-kernel learning), MT (multiple-task)-MKL (L1), MT-MKL (L2) were from \cite{kandemir2014multi} also using the LOSO cross-validation process. L1 and L2 denote L1 and L2 regularization.
multiple-fusion-layer based ensemble classifier of stacked autoencoder (MESAE)
deep belief network (DBN)
Bimodal-LSTM (Multimodal Emotion Recognition Using Deep Neural Networks)
\end{tablenotes}

\end{table*}
\end{comment}

\subsection{Model Explanation Using SHAP}
In order to improve the explainablility of the LightGBM model, we used SHAP \cite{lundberg2017unified,lundberg2018explainable,lundberg2020local}, which was built on Shapley value \cite{shapley1953contributions} from game theory. The Shapley value of a pair of features and its value is computed using:
\begin{equation} \label{shapley}
\varphi_{i}(v)=\sum_{T\subseteq F\setminus \{i\}}{\frac {|T|!(n-|T|-1)!}{n!}}(v(T\cup \{i\})-v(T)),
\end{equation}
where $n$ is the total number of features, $T$ is a subset of $F$ (i.e., the coalition of all the features), $v(T)$ is the contribution of the coalition $T$ in predicting emotion, and the above equation sums all the subsets $T$ that do not include the feature $i$. Due to the computational load to calculate all the contributions of $T$, when the number of the features is large, SHAP explanation was proposed for tree-based models to reduce its computation from $O(TrL2^n)$ to $O(TrLD^2)$, where $Tr$ is the number of the trees, $L$ is the largest number of the leaves of the trees, $n$ is the total number of the features in the model, and $D$ is the depth of the trees. Due to the fact that SHAP has desirable properties, including local accuracy, missingness, and consistency, which offer a solid theory in explaining machine learning models compared to feature importance measures in other methods \cite{lundberg2017unified}. SHAP is also able to identify the most salient interaction effect between two features, defined as the additional combined feature effects minus individual main feature effects:
\begin{equation} \label{Shap_interaction}
\varphi_{i,j}(v)=\sum_{T\subseteq F\setminus\{i,j\}}\frac{|T|!(n-|T|-2)!}{2(n-1)!}\delta_{ij}(T),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{coliation}
\delta_{ij}(T)=v(T\cup\{i,j\})-v(T\cup\{i\})-v(T\cup\{j\})+v(T),
\end{equation}
In this research, SHAP was used to not only identify the most important features in emotion recognition in LightGBM as a feature selection process, but also explain the main effects and interaction effects of the important features.

\section{Results}
\subsection{Prediction Performance}
We used LOSO cross-validation to show the performance of the proposed method for the three binary classification models, i.e., valence, arousal, and liking. The total sample size was 1280, the training sample size was 1240, and the test sample size was 40 in each round. This process was repeated for 32 times for 32 participants. We used f1-score and accuracy to measure the performance of the models \cite{zhou2011affect}. First, we included all the features in the LightGBM model and SHAP was used to identify the importance of each feature. Second, we added one feature at a time from the most important feature to the least one to find the optimal performance. Table \ref{tab:performance} shows the performance of the proposed model with all the features and an optimal set of features for XGBoost and LightGBM. Using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, we found that LightGBM performed significantly better than XGBoost for valence, arousal, and liking (all $p<0.001$) both by comparing the results (both accuracy and f1-score) of 51 models (adding one feature at a time, see Fig. \ref{fig:featureSelection}) between LightGBM (best) and XGBoost (best) and between LightGBM (all) and XGBoost (all). The model predicted Liking the best with an average accuracy of 0.691 and an average f1-score of 0.860, followed by arousal and valence with average f1-scores of 0.823 and 0.814, and average accuracy scores of 0.651 and 0.616. As a comparison, we also included the results from another study \cite{kandemir2014multi} that used LOSO cross-validation, showing the potential of the proposed model.

\subsection{Feature Selection and Importance}
Since LightGBM performed better than XGBoost, the results below were only produced from LightGBM. We first identified the overall ranking of feature importance by including all the features in the LightGBM model. This importance was measured at predicting all the test samples of the 32 rounds in the LOSO process rather than the training samples in order to help improve their generalizability. Then, we obtained the performance of 51 models (corresponding to the total number of the extracted features) by adding one feature at a time from the most important one to the least important one as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:featureSelection}. The best f1-scores were 0.814 (\#feature = 36), 0.823 (\#feature = 48), and 0.860 (\#feature = 22) and the best accuracy was 0.616 (\#feature = 6), 0.651 (\#feature = 12), and 0.691 (\#feature = 14), respectively, for valence, arousal, and liking corresponding to the results in Table \ref{tab:performance}. Therefore, by only selecting a partial number of the features, the best performance was obtained. The variability of accuracy tended to be larger than that of f1-scores for all valence, arousal, and liking.

By using the features selected with the optimal f1-scores, we used SHAP to identify the top 20 features for predicting valence, arousal, and liking in Fig. \ref{fig:featureImportance} ranked by their global influence of each feature in terms of their mean absolute SHAP value (in log loss) using $1/{N_s}\sum_{i=1}^{N_s}|\varphi_i^j|$, where ${N_s}$ is the number of the samples. Each dot (i.e., SHAP value $\varphi_i^j$) is plotted horizontally with color coding. Those in blue are smaller values and those in red are larger values. The horizontal location indicates the contributions (i.e., effects of the variable) to the prediction and the vertical location indicates the global importance of the variable on the prediction. For example, vEOG1\_FE, vEOG2\_SE, and PPG1\_FE were the most important features in predicting valence. The density of the violin figures shows how common the samples are in the dataset. Note in the feature names, the number before "\_" is the corresponding SSA component and the letters after "\_" indicate the feature type, where SE = sample entropy, FE = fuzzy entropy, and En =  Energy. For example, "vEOG1\_FE" indicates the fuzzy entropy of the first component of vertical EOG using SSA decomposition.

\begin{figure*} [bpt]
	\centering
	\subfloat[\label{fig:valence}]{\includegraphics[width=.32\linewidth]{Figures/Valence.pdf}}
	\hspace{0pt}
	\subfloat[\label{fig:arousal}]{\includegraphics[width=.32\linewidth]{Figures/Arousal.pdf}}
	\hspace{0pt}
	\subfloat[\label{fig:liking}]{\includegraphics[width=.32\linewidth]{Figures/Liking.pdf}}
    \caption{Feature selection by comparing the performance of the model that added one feature at a time from the most important one to the least important one: (a) Valence; (b) Arousal; (c): Liking. Note the error bar is the standard error produced in the LOSO cross-validation process, the x-axis is the number of the features included in the model and the y-axis is the performance in terms of accuracy and f1-score.}\label{fig:featureSelection}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*} [hbpt]
	\centering
	\subfloat[\label{fig:valenceFeatures}]{\includegraphics[width=.32\linewidth]{Figures/ValenceFeatures.pdf}}
	\hspace{0pt}
	\subfloat[\label{fig:arousalFeatures}]{\includegraphics[width=.32\linewidth]{Figures/ArousalFeatures.pdf}}
	\hspace{0pt}
	\subfloat[\label{fig:likingFeatures}]{\includegraphics[width=.32\linewidth]{Figures/LikeFeatures.pdf}}
    \caption{The top 20 features ranked for their global influence in terms of SHAP values (from top to bottom in descending order) in predicting (a) valence, (b) arousal, and (c) liking using the models with their best f1-scores.  }\label{fig:featureImportance}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Main and Interaction Effects}

\begin{figure*} [bpt]
	\centering
	\subfloat[\label{fig:effect_V1}]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{Figures/Effect_V1.png}}
	\vspace{0pt}
	\subfloat[\label{fig:effect_V2}]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{Figures/Effect_V2.png}}
    \caption{(a) Main effect of vEOG1\_FE on predicting valence, showing a negative correlation between vEOG1\_FE and contributions to positive valence in terms of its SHAP values. This effect was interacted by another feature named PPG1\_FE and its interaction effect is shown in (b), where larger values of PPG1\_FE leads to more contributions to predicting positive valence than smaller values of PPG1\_FE when vEOG1\_FE is smaller than about 0.018, and this effect is reversed when vEOG1\_FE is larger than about 0.018. Note in both figures the SHAP values for vEOG1\_FE on the left vertical y-axis indicate its contributions to valence and a positive value leads to more likelihood of positive valence; the main effect of vEOG1\_FE is interacted by PPG1\_FE located on the right vertical y-axis and its values are color-coded, i.e., larger ones are in red while smaller ones are in blue. This also applies to Fig. \ref{fig:effectsA} and Fig. \ref{fig:effectsL}. }\label{fig:effectsV}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*} [bpt]
	\centering
	\subfloat[\label{fig:effect_A1}]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{Figures/Effect_A1.png}}
	\vspace{0pt}
	\subfloat[\label{fig:effect_A2}]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{Figures/Effect_A2.png}}
    \caption{(a) Main effect of vEOG2\_SE on predicting arousal, showing a positive correlation between vEOG2\_SE and contributions to high arousal in terms of its SHAP values. This effect was interacted by another feature named Resp1\_En, and its interaction effect is shown in (b) where larger values of Resp1\_En leads to more contributions to predicting low arousal  than smaller values of Resp1\_En, when vEOG2\_SE is smaller than about 0.28 and this effect is reversed when vEOG2\_SE is larger than about 0.28.}\label{fig:effectsA}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*} [bpt]
	\centering
	\subfloat[\label{fig:effect_L1}]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{Figures/Effect_L1.png}}
	\vspace{0pt}
	\subfloat[\label{fig:effect_L2}]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{Figures/Effect_L2.png}}
    \caption{(a) Main effect of PPG1\_FE on predicting liking, showing a negative correlation between PPG1\_FE and the contributions to liking in terms of its SHAP values. This effect was interacted by another feature named Temp1\_En and its interaction effect is shown in (b) where smaller values of Temp1\_En leads to more contributions to predicting liking  than larger values of Temp1\_En, when PPG1\_FE is smaller than about 4000 and this effect is reversed when PPG1\_FE is larger than about 4000.}\label{fig:effectsL}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*} [bpt]
	\centering
	\subfloat[\label{fig:valenceInteraction}]{\includegraphics[width=.32\linewidth]{Figures/InteractionV.png}}
	\hspace{0pt}
	\subfloat[\label{fig:arousalInteraction}]{\includegraphics[width=.32\linewidth]{Figures/InteractionA.png}}
	\hspace{0pt}
	\subfloat[\label{fig:likingInteraction}]{\includegraphics[width=.32\linewidth]{Figures/InteractionL.png}}
    \caption{Interaction matrices for the top 10 features that had the strongest total interaction with other features: (a) Valence interaction matrix, (b) Arousal interaction matrix, (c) Liking interaction matrix.}\label{fig:interactionMatrix}
\end{figure*}

To better understand how individual features influence the model prediction, we further examined the main and interaction effects. Due to space limitations, we only showed one main and interaction effect each for valence, arousal, and liking. Note we only included data from the 2.5th percentile to 97.5th percentile in order to examine the major trend. Fig. \ref{fig:effect_V1} shows the main effect of vEOG1\_FE. The overall trend is that the larger the value of vEOG1\_FE, the less likely the positive valence. This is consistent with the results in Fig. \ref{fig:valenceFeatures}. Note a larger entropy value in this paper indicates the signal is less regular, and vice versa. At the same time, vEOG1\_FE interacts with PPG1\_FE. In order to better observe the interaction effect, we show it in Fig. \ref{fig:effect_V2} that larger values of PPG1\_FE leads to more contributions to predicting positive valence than smaller values of PPG1\_FE when vEOG1\_FE is smaller than about 0.018, and this effect is reversed when vEOG1\_FE is larger than about 0.018. This interaction effect was also calculated as 80.2 as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:valenceInteraction} using Eq. \ref{Shap_interaction}.
Fig. \ref{fig:effect_A1} shows the main effect of vEOG2\_SE on predicting arousal, showing a positive correlation between vEOG2\_SE and contributions to high arousal in terms of its SHAP values. This effect was interacted by another feature named Resp1\_En and its interaction effect is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:effect_A2} where larger values of Resp1\_En leads to more contributions to predicting low arousal than smaller values of Resp1\_En, when vEOG2\_SE is smaller than about 0.28 and this effect is reversed when vEOG2\_SE is larger than about 0.28. This interaction effect was also calculated as 18.0 as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:arousalInteraction} using Eq. \ref{Shap_interaction}.
Fig. \ref{fig:effect_L1} shows the main effect of PPG1\_FE on predicting liking, showing a negative correlation between PPG1\_FE and the contributions to liking in terms of its SHAP values. This effect was interacted by another feature named Temp1\_En and its interaction effect is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:effect_L2} where smaller values of Temp1\_En leads to more contributions to predicting liking  than larger values of Temp1\_En, when PPG1\_FE is smaller than about 4000 and this effect is reversed when PPG1\_FE is larger than about 4000. This interaction effect was also calculated as 69.7 as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:likingInteraction} using Eq. \ref{Shap_interaction}.

In order to show the interaction effects between different features of the LightGBM (best) model as shown in Table \ref{tab:performance}, we calculated the interaction matrices for valence, arousal, and liking in Fig. \ref{fig:interactionMatrix} ordered by features of total interaction effects with all other features selected in the model. Those in the diagonal entries indicate the main effects of the specific features, while those in the off-diagonal entries indicate the interaction effects between two features. Note only features of the total interaction effects in the top ten list were shown in the matrix due to space limit. As an example, the top three features are  vEOG1\_FE, PPG1\_FE, and GSR2\_FE in Fig. \ref{fig:valenceInteraction}, and the feature vEOG1\_FE has the largest total interaction effects by summing all other interaction effects with others.

\section{Discussion}
\subsection{Model Performance}
In this paper, we used a LOSO cross-validation process in order to improve the generalizability of the explanations of the LightGBM models. Compared to previous studies \cite{kandemir2014multi,romeo2019multiple} with LOSO cross-validation, our proposed method had better performance. Despite the fact that there were better results reported using the same dataset, they did not adopt a LOSO cross-validation process or also used EEG data (see Table \ref{tab:performance}). The application of SSA was effective to improve the performance of our models, which was reported to eliminate noise in the raw data better than digital filtering methods \cite{alonso2005application}, and decomposed the raw data into independent additive components \cite{elsner2013singular}.  By making use of the  singular value hard thresholding formula \cite{6846297}, we were able to remove the noise effectively. The SSA method was also shown to improve the classification performance of machine learning models constructed from physiological signals \cite{liu2008physiology,lu2020dynamic}. In addition, there were only two parameters involved in SSA decomposition, including the window length and the number of the components for reconstruction, which made it easier for practical uses. Another important reason that improves the performance of our models might be the extracted features. Rather than using a statistic features (e.g., mean, standard deviation), we made use of complexity and energy measures. For one thing, entropy measures the randomness of a time series signal, which is an essential limitation of moment statistics \cite{delgado2019approximate}. For example, a periodic signal (e.g., RC 2 in Fig. \ref{fig:PPG2}) could have exactly the same mean value and standard deviation if it was randomized while the entropy measures are able to tell the differences between the two. Similarly, there were only a small number of parameters in calculating entropy measures, including the embedding dimension and the tolerance for sample entropy, and a third parameter, i.e., the step of the fuzzy function. We selected these parameters based on previous studies \cite{chen2007characterization,lu2020dynamic,lu2020entropy}, which proved to have good performance in this paper. Moreover, the inclusion of energy feature was also helpful, as evidenced in Fig. \ref{fig:featureImportance}, where there are 6, 4, and 7 energy features (those ended with "\_En") included in the top 20 features for valence, arousal, and liking, respectively. Furthermore, LightGBM excelled in emotion recognition using the extracted features in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. The GOSS strategy and the feature bundle approach played a significant role in improving the performance compared to another successful tree-ensemble method, i.e., XGBoost. Finally, the feature selection method enabled by SHAP boosted the performance of emotion recognition as evidenced in Fig. \ref{fig:featureSelection}. Hence, the good performance was the result by leveraging different aspects of the proposed method.

\subsection{Explainability for Emotion Recognition}
Our research is among the few examples that attempted to explain the hidden knowledge captured by the machine learning models in emotion recognition. First, SHAP was able to identify the most important features. As shown in Fig. \ref{fig:featureImportance}, the top three most important features are vEOG1\_FE, Resp1\_FE and tEMG2\_SE for valence prediction, vEOG2\_SE, tEMG3\_SE, and GSR1\_En for arousal prediction, and PPG1\_FE, hEGO2\_FE, and vEOG2\_SE for liking prediction. Also as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:featureSelection}, a small number of top features already have good performance in terms of f1-scores. Such insights are extremely helpful in selecting features and improving model performance. In addition, the numbers of SSA components decomposed from each raw signal were small. There were two, two, one, three, two, two, one, and four components extracted from hEOG, vEOG, zEMG, tEMG, SCR, Resp, and PPG. Such SSA components were either varying trends or oscillatory signals (see Fig. \ref{fig:SSA}). This helped interpret individual features to a large extent. For example, vEOG1\_FE  and vEOG2\_FE were the fuzzy entropy of the major varying trend and the periodic component of vEOG and the trend component was most important in predicting valence in the model. Even though there were four oscillatory components extracted from PPG signals, they might be related to cardiac changes in the blood volume related to heart beats, superimposed by other components due to respiration, thermo-regulation, and activities in the sympathetic nervous system \cite{SUBASI201927}. Further investigation is needed to identify their mapping relations.
Second, we are able to identify the hidden relationships between different features and emotions (i.e., valence, arousal, and liking). For example, vEOG1\_FE was negatively correlated with its contributions (i.e., SHAP values) to positive valence prediction in Fig. \ref{fig:effect_V1}, vEOG2\_SE was positively correlated with its contributions to high arousal prediction in Fig. \ref{fig:effect_A1}, and PPG1\_FE was negatively correlated with its contributions to liking prediction in Fig. \ref{fig:effect_L1}. By examining such relationships, we are able to understand the unique patterns of physiological measures associated with different emotions and such insights are useful for different practical applications as evidenced by \cite{weitz2019deep}. Thus, the most important features derived from physiological data could recognize emotion reliably and consistently, based on which appropriate measures might be provided in various areas for effective emotion intervention, such as medical care \cite{doukas2008intelligent}. Third, what is less well known is the interaction between different features that SHAP identified as shown in Figs. \ref{fig:effect_V2}, \ref{fig:effect_A2}, and \ref{fig:effect_L2}. Such interaction effects were visualized continuously rather than among a small number of levels in classical statistical analysis. We further calculated the interaction matrices in Fig. \ref{fig:interactionMatrix} and we quantitatively calculated the interaction between each features, which offered a big picture in understanding how individual features influence emotion classification.

\subsection{Limitations and Future Work}
Our study also suffers from limitations, which can be left for future work. First, the SSA method helped extract useful features to improve model performance. However, one feature was decomposed into several and the relationships between these decomposed components and emotions can be less clear compared to the original raw signal. For example, we found that PPG2\_SE, PPG3\_SE, and PPG4\_SE were found to be in the top 20 features for valence prediction. As mentioned previously, more investigation is needed to understand what these periodic components mean physiologically as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:valenceFeatures}. Furthermore, it might be less clear about the overall relationship between PPG and valence as a whole without examining all the four components of PPG. One possible solution is to further reduce the number of the features in the model. As shown in Fig. \ref{fig:featureSelection}, the performance of models can be quickly stabilized with only a small number of features in terms of f1-scores.  Second, the features were extracted from 60-second time series samples, which enabled the LightGMB model to perform the classification purposes. However, we were not able to tell the dynamics of the physiological data. Future research can be conducted by using a sliding time window, which can potentially improve the performance \cite{lu2020dynamic}. Third, we selected the values of the parameters involved in SSA and entropy measures based on previous studies \cite{chen2007characterization,lu2020dynamic,lu2020entropy}.
In the future, it is possible to conduct a sensitivity analysis with regard to different parameters involved, including the window length and number of components in SSA and the embedding dimension in calculating entropy measures, to help understand how they influence the model performance. Fourth, we used the DEAP dataset to demonstrate the proposed method. Specifically, we only used the 12 peripheral physiological data for emotion recognition with LOSO cross validation. In the future, EEG signals can also be included to check the performance of the proposed method. The dataset was recorded in two separate locations, including Twente and Geneva. It potentially can help improve the capability of generalizing the results, but also had differences in data quality due to different hardware. Our proposed method can also be applied to other datasets to examine its generalizability.

\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we proposed a method to recognize emotions using peripheral physiological data by taking both performance and explainability into consideration. First, in order to deal with the spare labeling issue in the physiological data, we used both complexity and energy measures to extract features from decomposed components enabled by SSA. Such an approach proved to be effective in this paper as evidenced by the better performance of LightGBM when it was compared with XGBoost and previous research. Second, in order to improve the explainability of the LightGBM model, SHAP was used to identify the most important features and the relationships (i.e., main and interaction effects) between individual features and emotions.
Therefore, our proposed method has good implications on not only improving the performance of emotion recognition, but also on deploying the model for affective human-machine systems.

\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
  \newpage
\fi

\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}

\section*{Introduction}

In this file, we present some tips and sample mark-up to assure your
\LaTeX\ file of the smoothest possible journey from review manuscript
to published {\it Science\/} paper.  We focus here particularly on
issues related to style files, citation, and math, tables, and
figures, as those tend to be the biggest sticking points.  Please use
the source file for this document, \texttt{scifile.tex}, as a template
for your manuscript, cutting and pasting your content into the file at
the appropriate places.

{\it Science\/}'s publication workflow relies on Microsoft Word.  To
translate \LaTeX\ files into Word, we use an intermediate MS-DOS
routine \cite{tth} that converts the \TeX\ source into HTML\@.  The
routine is generally robust, but it works best if the source document
is clean \LaTeX\ without a significant freight of local macros or
\texttt{.sty} files.  Use of the source file \texttt{scifile.tex} as a
template, and calling {\it only\/} the \texttt{.sty} and \texttt{.bst}
files specifically mentioned here, will generate a manuscript that
should be eminently reviewable, and yet will allow your paper to
proceed quickly into our production flow upon acceptance \cite{use2e}.

\section*{Formatting Citations}

Citations can be handled in one of three ways.  The most
straightforward (albeit labor-intensive) would be to hardwire your
citations into your \LaTeX\ source, as you would if you were using an
ordinary word processor.  Thus, your code might look something like
this:

\begin{quote}
\begin{verbatim}
However, this record of the solar nebula may have been
partly erased by the complex history of the meteorite
parent bodies, which includes collision-induced shock,
thermal metamorphism, and aqueous alteration
({\it 1, 2, 5--7\/}).
\end{verbatim}
\end{quote}

\noindent Compiled, the last two lines of the code above, of course, would give notecalls in {\it Science\/} style:

\begin{quote}
\ldots thermal metamorphism, and aqueous alteration ({\it 1, 2, 5--7\/}).
\end{quote}

Under the same logic, the author could set up his or her reference list as a simple enumeration,

\begin{quote}
\begin{verbatim}
{\bf References and Notes}

\begin{enumerate}
\item G. Gamow, {\it The Constitution of Atomic Nuclei
and Radioactivity\/} (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1931).
\item W. Heisenberg and W. Pauli, {\it Zeitschr.\ f.\
Physik\/} {\bf 56}, 1 (1929).
\end{enumerate}
\end{verbatim}
\end{quote}

\noindent yielding

\begin{quote}
{\bf References and Notes}

\begin{enumerate}
\item G. Gamow, {\it The Constitution of Atomic Nuclei and
Radioactivity\/} (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1931).
\item W. Heisenberg and W. Pauli, {\it Zeitschr.\ f.\ Physik} {\bf 56},
1 (1929).
\end{enumerate}
\end{quote}

That's not a solution that's likely to appeal to everyone, however ---
especially not to users of B{\small{IB}}\TeX\ \cite{inclme}.  If you
are a B{\small{IB}}\TeX\ user, we suggest that you use the
\texttt{Science.bst} bibliography style file and the
\texttt{scicite.sty} package, both of which are downloadable from our author help site.
{\bf While you can use B{\small{IB}}\TeX\ to generate the reference list, please don't submit
your .bib and .bbl files; instead, paste the generated .bbl file into the .tex file, creating
 \texttt{\{thebibliography\}} environment.}
 You can also
generate your reference lists directly by using
\texttt{\{thebibliography\}} at the end of your source document; here
again, you may find the \texttt{scicite.sty} file useful.

Whatever you use, be
very careful about how you set up your in-text reference calls and
notecalls.  In particular, observe the following requirements:

\begin{enumerate}
\item Please follow the style for references outlined at our author
  help site and embodied in recent issues of {\it Science}.  Each
  citation number should refer to a single reference; please do not
  concatenate several references under a single number.
\item The reference numbering  continues from the
main text to the Supplementary Materials (e.g. this main
text has references 1-3; the numbering of references in the
Supplementary Materials should start with 4).
\item Please cite your references and notes in text {\it only\/} using
  the standard \LaTeX\ \verb+\cite+ command, not another command
  driven by outside macros.
\item Please separate multiple citations within a single \verb+\cite+
  command using commas only; there should be {\it no space\/}
  between reference keynames.  That is, if you are citing two
  papers whose bibliography keys are \texttt{keyname1} and
  \texttt{keyname2}, the in-text cite should read
  \verb+\cite{keyname1,keyname2}+, {\it not\/}
  \verb+\cite{keyname1, keyname2}+.
\end{enumerate}

\noindent Failure to follow these guidelines could lead
to the omission of the references in an accepted paper when the source
file is translated to Word via HTML.

\section*{Handling Math, Tables, and Figures}

Following are a few things to keep in mind in coding equations,
tables, and figures for submission to {\it Science}.

\paragraph*{In-line math.}  The utility that we use for converting
from \LaTeX\ to HTML handles in-line math relatively well.  It is best
to avoid using built-up fractions in in-line equations, and going for
the more boring ``slash'' presentation whenever possible --- that is,
for \verb+$a/b$+ (which comes out as $a/b$) rather than
\verb+$\frac{a}{b}$+ (which compiles as $\frac{a}{b}$).
 Please do not code arrays or matrices as
in-line math; display them instead.  And please keep your coding as
\TeX-y as possible --- avoid using specialized math macro packages
like \texttt{amstex.sty}.

\paragraph*{Tables.}  The HTML converter that we use seems to handle
reasonably well simple tables generated using the \LaTeX\
\texttt{\{tabular\}} environment.  For very complicated tables, you
may want to consider generating them in a word processing program and
including them as a separate file.

\paragraph*{Figures.}  Figure callouts within the text should not be
in the form of \LaTeX\ references, but should simply be typed in ---
that is, \verb+(Fig. 1)+ rather than \verb+\ref{fig1}+.  For the
figures themselves, treatment can differ depending on whether the
manuscript is an initial submission or a final revision for acceptance
and publication.  For an initial submission and review copy, you can
use the \LaTeX\ \verb+{figure}+ environment and the
\verb+\includegraphics+ command to include your PostScript figures at
the end of the compiled file.  For the final revision,
however, the \verb+{figure}+ environment should {\it not\/} be used;
instead, the figure captions themselves should be typed in as regular
text at the end of the source file (an example is included here), and
the figures should be uploaded separately according to the Art
Department's instructions.

\section*{What to Send In}

What you should send to {\it Science\/} will depend on the stage your manuscript is in:

\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Important:} If you're sending in the initial submission of
  your manuscript (that is, the copy for evaluation and peer review),
  please send in {\it only\/} a PDF version of the
  compiled file (including figures).  Please do not send in the \TeX\
  source, \texttt{.sty}, \texttt{.bbl}, or other associated files with
  your initial submission.  (For more information, please see the
  instructions at our Web submission site.)
\item When the time comes for you to send in your revised final
  manuscript (i.e., after peer review), we require that you include
   source files and generated files in your upload. {\bf The .tex file should include
the reference list as an itemized list (see "Formatting citations"  for the various options). The bibliography should not be in a separate file.}
  Thus, if the
  name of your main source document is \texttt{ltxfile.tex}, you
  need to include:
\begin{itemize}
\item \texttt{ltxfile.tex}.
\item \texttt{ltxfile.aux}, the auxilliary file generated by the
  compilation.
\item A PDF file generated from
  \texttt{ltxfile.tex}.

\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}


A Submillimeter HCN Laser in IRC+10216

Abstract: We report the detection of a strong submillimeter wavelength HCN laser line at a frequency near 805 GHz toward the carbon star IRC+10216. This line, the J=9-8 rotational transition within the (04(0)0) vibrationally excited state, is one of a series of HCN laser lines that were first detected in the laboratory in the early days of laser spectroscopy. Since its lower energy level is 4200 K above the ground state, the laser emission must arise from the inner part of IRC+10216's circumstellar envelope. To better characterize this environment, we observed other, thermally emitting, vibrationally excited HCN lines and find that they, like the laser line, arise in a region of temperature approximately 1000 K that is located within the dust formation radius; this conclusion is supported by the linewidth of the laser. The (04(0)0), J=9-8 laser might be chemically pumped and may be the only known laser (or maser) that is excited both in the laboratory and in space by a similar mechanism.

\section{Observations}
The observations were made in 1998 February as part of a systematic
study of IRC+10216's submillimeter spectrum with the 810~GHz receiver
(Kooi et al. 1998) of the Caltech Submillimeter Observatory (CSO) 10.4
m telescope on Mauna Kea, Hawaii.  Typical single sideband system
temperatures were about 5000~K under excellent weather conditions,
i.e. time periods when the precipitable water vapor content was below
1 mm.
Pointing was checked by observing the CO(7--6) line toward IRC+10216
itself, resulting in a pointing accuracy of $\approx 2$\hbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}.  At
805 GHz the beam width is $9''$ (FWHM) and the main beam efficiency
was found to be 0.3 from observations of Mars.  The spectrometer and
observing procedure are described in Menten \&\ Young (1995). We
estimate our absolute calibration uncertainties to be $\approx 30$\%.
Additional observations of HCN $J$=3--2, 4--3, and 8--7 rotational
lines within different vibrational states at frequencies near 266,
355, and 709~GHz were made in 1998 April with the same telescope.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \begin{center}
\includegraphics[bb=170 470 460 700]{fig1.ps}
\caption{Spectrum of the $(04^00)$, $J$=9--8 laser line
  is shown as the bold line. The very narrow linewidth and asymmetric
  shape are conspicuous when compared to a spectrum of the HCN $J$=4--3
  transition from the vibrational ground state, which is overlaid as
  the thin line. The flux density scale is appropriate for the
  $(04^00)$, $J$=9--8 line only.}
    \label{fig:fig1}
  \end{center}
\end{figure}

\section{Results and Discussion}
\subsection{A HCN submillimeter laser}
At millimeter wavelengths IRC+10216 has a rich molecular spectrum with
emission from more than 50 species arising from a compact central
region and/or from hollow shells centered on the star. Radii and
thicknesses of these shells depend on the excitation requirements of
the molecule in question and on the chemistry.  Generally speaking,
since submillimeter transitions need much higher densities and
temperatures for their excitation than lower frequency lines, the
submillimeter spectrum of IRC+10216 is considerably sparser than its
millimeter spectrum. In particular, lines from long chain molecules
and other radicals, which reside in shells of modest temperature and
density (see, e.g., Lucas \&\ Gu{\'e}lin 1999), are largely absent and
most of the detected lines can be assigned to simple diatomic or
triatomic species emitted from the inner envelope.  Moreover, almost
all of the submillimeter lines observed toward IRC+10216 are readily
assigned to known carriers (Groesbeck et al.  1994), whereas in the
mm-range many (weak) lines remain unidentified (Cernicharo et al.
1999).

We were thus surprised to discover a strong spectral line at a
frequency of $\approx 804.751$~GHz (Fig.~1), which we could not
readily identify in available line catalogs (e.g., Pickett et. al.
1998). The line's frequency was verified by checking its sideband
assignment by shifting the local oscillator frequency.  With a total
width $\simless 10$~\hbox{${\rm km\, s}^{-1}$} (FWZP) the emission covers a much smaller
velocity interval than most lines observed toward IRC+10216, which
have full widths of 29 \hbox{${\rm km\, s}^{-1}$}, i.e. twice the terminal outflow velocity,
\vinf. This indicates that the emission arises from a region in which
the outflow has not yet reached its terminal velocity and/or that the
line shows laser action. The latter is also suggested by the
asymmetric line profile which is distinctly different from the
symmetric parabolic, rectangular, or double ``horn''-shaped profiles
expected and commonly observed in the IRC+10216 envelope.

A literature search resulted in the identification of the line with
the $J$=9--8 transition of HCN within the $\nu_2=4$ vibrationally
excited bending mode\footnote{The linear triatomic HCN molecule has
  three vibrational states, one bending mode $\nu_2$, with $\nu_2=1$
  being $\approx 1000$~K above ground, and two stretching vibrations:
  $\nu_1$, corresponding to the CN stretch, where $\nu_1=1$ is 3000~K
  above the ground state, and $\nu_3$, the CH stretch, with $\nu_3=1$
  being 4700~K above ground.  [We follow the notation of Herzberg
  (1945) and note that various papers differ in their usage of the
  $\nu_1$, $\nu_2$, and $\nu_3$ quantum numbers.]  The bending mode
  $\nu_2$ is doubly degenerate; for $\nu_2\ne 0$ this degeneracy is
  lifted and the levels are split by rotation-vibration interaction.
  A new quantum number, $\ell$ (where $\ell=\nu, \nu-2, \ldots -\nu$)
  is needed to describe the system.  Overtones and combination bands
  also exist.  From here on, the notation ($\nu_1 \nu_2^\ell \nu_3$)
  is used.} (0$4^0$0), whose lower ($J$=8) level is 4163 K above the
ground state and whose frequency was measured by Hocker \&\ Javan
(1967) as 804.7509 GHz with an estimated uncertainty of 1 MHz.  Most
interestingly, this line was among the first submillimeter laser
transitions detected in the laboratory (Mathias, Crocker, \&\ Wills
1965) and is part of the extensively studied (1$1^1$0)/(0$4^0$0)
coriolis-perturbed system around the $J$ = 9 to 11 rotational levels in
these states (Gebbie, Stone, \&\ Findlay 1964; Lide \&\ Maki 1967).
These lasers, which are produced in gas discharges, were intensely
studied in the early years of molecular laser research (for reviews
see, e.g., Chantry 1971; Kneub{\"u}hl \&\ Sturzenegger 1980;
Pichamuthu 1983).

\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \begin{center}
    \includegraphics[scale=0.5,angle=-90]{fig2.ps}
\caption{Excerpt from the level diagrams of
  the $(11^10)$ and $(04^00)$ vibrationally excited states of HCN near
  the Coriolis resonance involving the $J$=8 to 12 rotational levels.
  Prominent laser lines detected in the laboratory are indicated by
  arrows along with their frequencies.  The bold arrow indicates the
  $(04^00)$, $J$=9--8 transition discussed in the present paper.}
    \label{fig:fig2}
  \end{center}
\end{figure}

Fig.~2 shows HCN energy levels around the $J$=10 and $J$=9 rotational
states within the $(11^{1}0)$ and $(04^{0}0)$ vibrational ladders.
Fortuitously, several of the rotational levels in the $(11^{1}0)$
state are very close in energy to levels with identical $J$\ in the
$(04^{0}0)$ state. This results in rotation-vibration interactions,
i.e. Coriolis coupling, and non-vanishing
transition probabilities for cross-ladder transitions (Lide \&\ Maki 1967).

To understand the occurence of laser action in these cross-ladder
and connected transitions, we note that
the (100) state is, practically
speaking, metastable (Herzberg 1945),
with vibrational transitions from the (100)
to the (000) ground state being $\sim 2$ -- 3 orders of magnitudes
slower than
(010)--(000) and
(001)--(000) transitions
(Kim \&\ King 1979).
In the laboratory, HCN molecules produced in a gas discharge
are distributed over the various vibrational states, most of which
[including the $(04^{0}0)$ state] will depopulate quickly by
spontaneous emission directly to the ground state or by cascading down the
vibrational ladder.  However, the metastable (100) state,
and all combination states building upon it, such as
the $(11^{1}0)$ state, will become overpopulated relative to other
vibrational states, including the $(04^00)$ state.
A consequence of this is laser action in the
$J$=11--10 and 10--9 cross-ladder transitions, which in turn
causes the $(04^00)$, $J$=10 and $J$=9 states to be overpopulated and the
$(11^{1}0)$, $J$=11 and 10 to be underpopulated, resulting
in laser action in the $(04^00)$, $J$=10--9 and 9--8 as well as in the
$(11^{1}0)$, $J$=12--11 and 11--10 transitions.

It is interesting to note that of the more than 120
cosmic maser and laser transitions known so far,
the HCN $(04^00)$, $J$=9--8 line is, apart from
the $(J,K) = (3,3)$ inversion line of ammonia (NH$_3$, Mangum
\&\ Wootten 1994), the only one that has been reported to show maser action in
an astronomical object as well as in the laboratory.
In the case of the NH$_3$ (3,3) maser, inversion in the laboratory
(Gordon, Zeiger, \&\ Townes 1954) is
achieved by completely different means than in interstellar space
(Flower, Offer, \&\ Schilke 1990). In contrast, quite remarkably,
the HCN laser might be produced in IRC+10216's circumstellar envelope
by essentially the same mechanism as in a gas discharge call.
This will be discussed in
\S3.3 after a we have described the environment in which the laser arises.

\subsection{Vibrationally excited HCN in IRC+10216's innermost envelope}

Since the (0$4^0$0), $J$=9--8 line is emitted from a very highly
excited vibrational state of the molecule, we
try to characterize
the excitation conditions of hot HCN in IRC+10216's inner envelope by
using our own multi-line observations as well as data from the literature.

The first observations of vibrationally excited HCN in
IRC+10216 were made by Ziurys \& Turner (1986), who detected
the $J$=3--2 transition in the $(01^{1_c}0)$, $(01^{1_d}0)$, and
$(02^{0}0)$ states and find
the levels to be thermally populated.  Guilloteau, Omont, \&\ Lucas (1987)
report strong maser emission in the $(02^{0}0)$, $J$=1--0 transition
toward the carbon star CIT 6. Weaker maser emission in this line is found
toward other carbon-rich stars (Lucas, Guilloteau, \&\ Omont 1988) including
IRC+10216 (Guilloteau et al. 1987).
Interferometric observations toward the latter star
suggest that the maser action arises from within a region of radius
0\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime\prime}$} 25, or $\approx 10~r_\star$ (Lucas \&\ Guilloteau 1992).
Strong maser action in the
$(01^{1_c}0)$, $J$=2--1 transition was found toward IRC+10216 by
Lucas \& Cernicharo (1989), who
also observed thermally excited lines from the $(01^{1_d}0)$,
$(02^{0}0)$ and $(02^{2}0)$ states.

Rotational lines from the (100) and (001) states of HCN were first detected by
Groesbeck, Phillips, \&\ Blake (1994), who observed the $J$=4--3 transition
in these as well as in several of the (01$^\ell$0) and (0$2^\ell$0)
states.
Using the Infrared Space Observatory (ISO) Cernicharo et al. (1996)
found emission in these  vibrational states from the
$J$=18--17 up to the $J$=48--47 rotational lines.
These observations indicate a vibrational temperature of 1000~K.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \begin{center}
    \includegraphics[scale=0.5,angle=-90]{fig3.ps}
\caption{Vibration--rotation Boltzmann plot for HCN,
  comprising our data and the (020) data from Groesbeck et al. 1994.
  The entries for the $(01^{1_c}0)$ maser and $(04^{0}0)$ laser lines
  are marked as an ``x'' and a triangle, respectively, and are not
  used in the fit.}
  \end{center}
\end{figure}

We complemented the data from the literature by using the CSO to
observe various other thermally excited lines from vibrationally
excited states with energies comparable to or even exceeding that of
the (0$4^0$0), $J$=9--8 line. Details of these observations will be
given in a future publication.  Using the complete set of data we
construct the vibrational-rotational excitation diagram shown in
Fig.~3, for which we assume a point-like source and ``normalize'' the
intensities, which were measured with different resolutions, to a
11\hbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\ FWHM beam. Clearly, the abscissa values of the data points
representing the $(01^{1_c}0)$, $J$=2--1 maser and our $(04^00)$,
$J$=9--8 laser are much higher than the thermal equilibrium values
expected for these lines.  Excluding those points, a least square fit
yields a vibrational temperature of 1000~K, similar to the value found
by Cernicharo et al. (1996). Assuming that the brightness temperature
of the thermally excited lines in the $(04^{0}0)$ state is equal to or
smaller than this number, we find an lower limit of 0\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime\prime}$} 08, or
$\approx 3.5 r_\star$ for the radius of the emitting region.  This is
comparable to the upper limit found interferometrically for the radius
of the $(02^{0}0)$, $J$=1--0 emission region and is
close to the  dust condensation radius, which according to the model
calculations of Groenewegen (1997) is at
4.5~$r_\star$ at a temperature of
1075~K. The high excitation vibrationally excited
thermal lines have, in contrast to the laser line, symmetric profiles
covering a velocity range that is very similar to that of
the laser line, i.e.\ much narrower than that of lines from the
vibrational ground state. We therefore conclude that the
HCN laser line is formed at the dust condensation radius at a temperature
of 1000~K.

Both the laser discussed here and the $(01^{1_c}0)$, $J$=2--1 and
$(02^{0}0)$, $J$=1--0 masers exhibit enhanced emission at
velocities that are blueshifted relative to the stellar velocity.
If a systematic outflow has already started in the part of the
envelope giving rise to the HCN masers, one would expect
the blueshifted emission to arise from between the star and the observer,
allowing for the possibility that its greater intensity is due to
amplication of background emission from the stellar photosphere.
A significant
reduction of the redshifted emission due to geometrical blocking
by the star can be excluded if the size of the HCN emission region
has dimensions of the order discussed above. On the other hand, we know
from Very Long Baseline Interferometry of SiO masers in O-rich Mira stars that
red- and blue-shifted SiO maser emission does not necessarily arise
from, respectively, the back and front parts of the
circumstellar shell; instead ring-like emission
distributions are observed, indicating tangential amplification
(Diamond et al. 1994).
Recent high resolution infrared observations in the $K'$ band
(Weigelt et al. 1998) indicate that the dust shell of IRC+10216 is
extremely clumpy and asymmetric to a radius of $\approx 0\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime\prime}$} 2$ or
$9~r_\star$,
which is comparable to the size of the dust formation and HCN laser/maser
region. Maser pumping by such a highly anisotropic infrared field would
certainly  result in an inhomogenous emission distribution giving
rise to an asymmetric line profile. Very high resolution
interferometric observations with future instruments such as the Atacama Large
Millimeter Array (ALMA) are needed to image the maser emission and
study its dynamics.

\subsection{Pumping Schemes}

A direct radiative pump from the ground state into the $(11^10)$ state
does not seem likely, since in that case the other
vibrational states would be preferentially
populated by virtue of their higher transition
probabilities. We were unable to check for possible line overlaps between
infrared transitions from HCN and other molecules abundant in IRC+10216,
such as CO, and pumping by that mechanism remains viable in principle.
Collisional pumping might also be possible, since the critical density
(i.e., the ratio of the Einstein A-coefficient
to the collisional excitation coefficient) of the $(100)$ stack, which
includes, among others, the $(11^10)$ combination state,
is lower than that of the other vibrational states,
if we assume comparable collision rates. A more
detailed analysis of this mechanism requires knowledge of
collisional excitation coefficients.

Most interestingly, chemical pumping, which has been invoked to explain
the laboratory HCN lasers (see, e.g., Chantry 1971; Pichamuthu 1983),
might also be at work in IRC+10216.
The basic idea is that the HCN molecules are formed in random
vibrational states, and a population inversion is
achieved in the $(11^10)$/$(04^00)$ system because of the wide difference
in the radiative decay rates of the different vibrational levels.
For this mechanism to work, the number of HCN creation events per time unit
should exceed the number of HCN laser photons emitted by a considerable
amount.
HCN is formed in thermochemical equilibrium (see Tsuji 1964), where
the reaction of CN with \HTW\ is likely to be a major channel.
In the following we assume that HCN formation proceeds at a typical
rate of $10^{-10}$ s$^{-1}$ in a
shell between radii of $2\times 10^{14}$
and $3\times 10^{14}$~cm, i.e. just
interior to the dust formation radius.  If we further assume a CN abundance
of $10^{-11}$ (the value at 1000~K; Lafont, Lucas \& Omont 1982)
and an \HTW\ density of $10^{12}$ cm$^{-3}$, we calculate $8\times
10^{45}$ HCN creation events per second.
From our spectrum we determine an integrated line flux of
6100~Jy~\hbox{${\rm km\, s}^{-1}$}, which corresponds to an isotropic photon luminosity
of $7\times10^{43}$ s$^{-1}$. Given that any alternative production mechanism
would only increase the number of creation events, it appears that
chemical pumping seems possible, although the uncertainties in the
numbers used are considerable.

Finally, we note that if the circumstellar 805 GHz laser results from
overpopulation of the $(11^{1}0)$ state
and $(11^10)$--$(04^00)$ cross-ladder transitions, as is highly likely,
one would also expect the other transitions
of this Coriolis-coupled system, like in the laboratory, to show
strong laser action toward IRC+10216. Of these (see Fig. 2), the
$(11^10)$--$(04^00)$, $J$=10--9 cross ladder transition at 890.76 GHz
and the 894.31 GHz $J$=10--9 line within the  $(04^00)$ state are, in principle,
observable from high, dry mountain sites,
but outside the frequency range of the
receiving system currently
available to us. The $(11^10)$--$(04^00)$, $J$=11--10 and
$(11^10)$, $J$=11--10 transitions at 964.31 and 967.96 GHz, respectively,
should be observable with the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared
Astronomy (SOFIA).
\vskip 0.2truein

We would like to thank Tom Phillips, the director of the CSO, for
granting us observing time, Darrel Dowell for help with some of the
observations, and Mark Reid for comments on the manuscript.
Work at the Caltech Submillimeter Observatory
is supported by NSF contract AST 96-15025.

A Submillimeter HCN Laser in IRC+10216