MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039097787 · doi:10.5573/ieiespc.2020.9.3.185

Adaptive Feature Generation for Speech Emotion Recognition

2020· article· en· W3039097787 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eui-Hwan Han, Hyung-Tai Cha

Bibliographic record

VenueIEIE Transactions on Smart Processing and Computing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSpeech recognitionMel-frequency cepstrumArtificial intelligenceClassifier (UML)Feature (linguistics)Principal component analysisPattern recognition (psychology)Emotion recognitionCorrelationEmotion classificationCepstrumSentiment analysisFeature extractionMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The issue of emotion recognition has received considerable critical attention in artificial intelligence and machine learning. In sentiment analysis fields, researchers recognize emotional states from speech, electroencephalograms, and images, etc. The speech signal is among the most widely used in emotion recognition. There are many speech features, including pitch, energy, linear prediction coefficients, mel-frequency cepstral coefficients, and the Teager energy operator. In this study, we explore the critical speech features for sentiment analysis. We modify our previous feature-generation method, which applies low-variance filtering and principal component analysis (for grouped features) to identify the features. We do not utilize between-class scatter here, but rather, the between class–scatter and within class–scatter ratio. Grouping is achieved according to the number of features—not correlation values. For an objective evaluation, we use the Ryerson Audio-Visual Database of Emotional Speech and Song, with a performance evaluation conducted in terms of classifier accuracy and computational complexity. Finally, we propose an effective feature-generation method to find the critical features for emotion recognition from speech.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEIE Transactions on Smart Processing and ComputingSame topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207