Audio and face video emotion recognition in the wild using deep neural networks and small datasets
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the techniques used in our contribution to Emotion Recognition in the Wild 2016’s video based sub-challenge. The purpose of the sub-challenge is to classify the six basic emotions (angry, sad, happy, surprise, fear & disgust) and neutral. Compared to earlier years’ movie based datasets, this year’s test dataset introduced reality TV videos containing more spontaneous emotion. Our proposed solution is the fusion of facial expression recognition and audio emotion recognition subsystems at score level. For facial emotion recognition, starting from a network pre-trained on ImageNet training data, a deep Convolutional Neural Network is fine-tuned on FER2013 training data for feature extraction. The classifiers, i.e., kernel SVM, logistic regression and partial least squares are studied for comparison. An optimal fusion of classifiers learned from different kernels is carried out at the score level to improve system performance. For audio emotion recognition, a deep Long Short-Term Memory Recurrent Neural Network (LSTM-RNN) is trained directly using the challenge dataset. Experimental results show that both subsystems individually and as a whole can achieve state-of-the art performance. The overall accuracy of the proposed approach on the challenge test dataset is 53.9%, which is better than the challenge baseline of 40.47% .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it