PaPaGei: Open Foundation Models for Optical Physiological Signals
Arvind Pillai, Dimitris Spathis, Fahim Kawsar, Mohammad Malekzadeh

TL;DR
PaPaGei is the first open foundation model for PPG signals, trained on extensive data, that outperforms existing models in diverse health-related tasks while being more efficient and robust.
Contribution
We introduce PaPaGei, a novel open foundation model for PPG signals that leverages domain knowledge and large-scale pretraining to improve generalization and efficiency.
Findings
Outperforms state-of-the-art models on 20 tasks across 10 datasets.
Improves classification and regression metrics by 6.3% and 2.9%.
More data- and parameter-efficient than larger models.
Abstract
Photoplethysmography (PPG) is the leading non-invasive technique for monitoring biosignals and cardiovascular health, with widespread adoption in both clinical settings and consumer wearable devices. While machine learning models trained on PPG signals have shown promise, they tend to be task-specific and struggle with generalization. Current research is limited by the use of single-device datasets, insufficient exploration of out-of-domain generalization, and a lack of publicly available models, which hampers reproducibility. To address these limitations, we present PaPaGei, the first open foundation model for PPG signals. The model is pre-trained on over 57,000 hours of data, comprising 20 million unlabeled PPG segments from publicly available datasets. We introduce a novel representation learning approach that leverages domain knowledge of PPG signal morphology across individuals,…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2025 Poster
1. The paper claims to propose the first open foundation model for PPG signals, which tries to improve the current models' performances using publicly available data and data augmentation, while also being relatively light-weight (~5M parameters) 2. The paper is well-organized, rich in technical details regarding the data preprocessing, model architecture and training, and performs extensive testing on different tasks. It also includes ablation studies that prove the performance gains of each co
1. While performing slightly better in some tasks relative to other foundation and SSL models, the proposed models lack comparison with task-specific non-SSL models. Despite including statistical feature models for baseline, which can give a basic comparison, state-of-the-art task-specific models, with or without engineered features, are not included. Such comparison would provide insights into whether the SSL approach yields better representations than supervised-learning ones. 2. Task performa
The motivation of the works regarding the open and public foundational models with datasets is important. The paper focuses on applications of healthcare with monitoring which is relatively less studied in machine learning community. The authors perform the skin tone analysis, which can be important to evaluate fairness.
The technical contribution of the paper is limited. All the components, extracted features, architectures, and augmentations, of the framework are not novel. Only the integrated loss values seem novel in training but there is no clear motivational evidence for this integration. Worse, extracting those features is not trivial for noisy PPG segments, especially the sVRI and IPA as they depend on the waveform. This limits the training to clean datasets, which are collected under very limited motion
* While pre-training foundation models for PPG has been done before with closed-source models/datasets some with open-source and some with closed-source code, this work presents the first open-source foundation model for PPG, trained on open datasets, with open-source code, that can foster the use of PPG for health applications and for health research. * The paper, in my opinion, is well-written. I enjoyed reading the paper, the comparisons are well-presented and the paper is easy to follow. I
* One of my main comments is regarding the novelty of the presented work, the language in the paper with respect to the prior work, and lack of comparison with the prior work in terms of performance. It appears to me that the idea in this paper resembles significant similarity to a prior work [1] (which is cited in this work multiple times) in terms of: 1) training a PPG foundation model on a large-scale dataset, 2) methodology in terms of loss, positive pairs, random augmentations, 3) evaluatio
Code & Models
Videos
Taxonomy
TopicsNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
MethodsContrastive Learning
