Fail closed trust gated synthetic augmentation governs tail risk under subject shift in EEG

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

Synthetic augmentation can silently harm subject-disjoint EEG generalization. We propose trustgated augmentation (TGA), a control layer that scores synthetic windows with a teacher trained on real data for label consistency and confidence; only samples above a confidence quantile q are eligible. A fail-closed selector injects synthetic data only if validation AUROC exceeds real-only by a margin, otherwise reverting to real-only. In PainMunich chronic-pain EEG ( n = 189) at 5% subject scarcity, ungated augmentation harmed 56% of paired runs (ΔAUROC< −0.01), whereas TGA at q = 0.99 reduced harm to 24% with comparable mean AUROC. In BCI IV-2a motor imagery ( n = 9) at 25% scarcity, strict gating improved AUROC (0.679 vs 0.627) and reduced harm (0.16 vs 0.44). A covariance-manifold audit showed synthetic windows were strongly off-manifold (mean distance ratio 2.39 × 10 4 ), motivating explicit governance.
Full text 997 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract Synthetic augmentation can silently harm subject-disjoint EEG generalization. We propose trustgated augmentation (TGA), a control layer that scores synthetic windows with a teacher trained on real data for label consistency and confidence; only samples above a confidence quantile q are eligible. A fail-closed selector injects synthetic data only if validation AUROC exceeds real-only by a margin, otherwise reverting to real-only. In PainMunich chronic-pain EEG (n = 189) at 5% subject scarcity, ungated augmentation harmed 56% of paired runs (ΔAUROC< −0.01), whereas TGA at q = 0.99 reduced harm to 24% with comparable mean AUROC. In BCI IV-2a motor imagery (n = 9) at 25% scarcity, strict gating improved AUROC (0.679 vs 0.627) and reduced harm (0.16 vs 0.44). A covariance-manifold audit showed synthetic windows were strongly off-manifold (mean distance ratio 2.39 × 104), motivating explicit governance. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00