Empirical Comparison between Deep and Classical Classifiers for Speaker Verification in Emotional Talking Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speech signals carry various bits of information relevant to the speaker such as age, gender, accent, language, health, and emotions. Emotions are conveyed through modulations of facial and vocal expressions. This paper conducts an empirical comparison of performances between the classical classifiers: Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM), Support Vector Machine (SVM), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Artificial neural networks (ANN); and the deep learning classifiers, i.e., Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), and Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) in addition to the ivector approach for a text-independent speaker verification task in neutral and emotional talking environments. The deep models undergo hyperparameter tuning using the Grid Search optimization algorithm. The models are trained and tested using a private Arabic Emirati Speech Database, Ryerson Audio–Visual Database of Emotional Speech and Song dataset (RAVDESS) database, and a public Crowd-Sourced Emotional Multimodal Actors (CREMA) database. Experimental results illustrate that deep architectures do not necessarily outperform classical classifiers. In fact, evaluation was carried out through Equal Error Rate (EER) along with Area Under the Curve (AUC) scores. The findings reveal that the GMM model yields the lowest EER values and the best AUC scores across all datasets, amongst classical classifiers. In addition, the ivector model surpasses all the fine-tuned deep models (CNN, LSTM, and GRU) based on both evaluation metrics in the neutral, as well as the emotional speech. In addition, the GMM outperforms the ivector using the Emirati and RAVDESS databases.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".