Multi-feature stacking order impact on speech emotion recognition performance
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
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.
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