ThinkNet: Evolutionary Deep Ensembles for Efficient Motor-Imagery EEG Classification

Abstract

Practical assistive and rehabilitative brain--computer interfaces require subject-independent motor-imagery EEG (MI-EEG) decoders that generalize to new users under limited target-user data and constrained compute. However, held-out-subject performance can be overstated when test-subject information influences preprocessing, model selection, or ensemble selection. We present \textit{ThinkNet}, a validation-controlled framework that combines train-only normalization, validation-guided evolutionary search, and validation-gated inference to identify compact decoders and inference policies for held-out subjects. We evaluate four-class BCI Competition IV-2a (session T) decoding with nine Leave-One-Subject-Out (LOSO) folds, three seeds, seven fixed decoder entries, and a broader search over ten representative decoder families; the held-out subject is never used for normalization, hyperparameter, architecture, or ensemble-policy selection. In the fixed benchmark, the validation-selected compact decoder achieved 44.35$\pm$15.41\% accuracy with 4.9K parameters, 19 KB FP32 weights, and 0.99 ms batch-1 Orin CUDA inference. Across the broader search, compact models ($\leq$25K parameters) achieved higher mean held-out accuracy than mid-size and large alternatives after selected retraining (40.10\% vs. 35.09\% and 34.78\%). Validation-gated ensembling improved over validation-selected single-model inference, reaching 43.98$\pm$16.25\% in the fixed benchmark and 43.31$\pm$15.88\% for the compact six-family ensemble. A non-deployable oracle analysis revealed a 6.1-point family-selection gap and near-zero validation--test correlation, showing that validation reliability remains a key bottleneck under subject shift. Thus, ThinkNet is a validation-controlled framework for compact MI-EEG model and inference-policy selection, rather than a single-architecture benchmark.

Abstract: arXiv descriptive metadata (CC0). Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. This service was not reviewed or approved by, nor does it necessarily express or reflect the policies or opinions of, arXiv.