Multi-feature stacking order impact on speech emotion recognition performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the biggest challenges in implementing SER is to produce a model that performs well and is lightweight. One of the ways is using one-dimensional convolutional neural network (1D CNN) and combining some handcrafted features. 1D CNN is mostly used for time series data. In time series data, the order of information plays an important role. In this case, the order of stacked features also plays an important role. In this work, the impact of changing the order is analyzed. This work proposes to brute force all possible combinations of feature orders from five features: Mel-frequency cepstral coefficient (MFCC), Mel-spectrogram, chromagram, spectral contrast, and tonnetz, then uses 1D CNN as the model architecture and benchmarking the model's performance on the Ryerson audio-visual database of emotional speech and song (RAVDESS) dataset. The results show that changing the order of features can impact overall classification accuracy, specific emotion accuracy, and model size. The best model has an accuracy of 79.17% for classifying 8 emotion classes with the following order: spectral contrast, tonnetz, chromagram, Mel-spectrogram, and MFCC. Finding a suitable order can increase the accuracy up to 16.05% and reduce the model size up to 96%.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".