Feature selection enhancement and feature space visualization for speech-based emotion recognition
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
Robust speech emotion recognition relies on the quality of the speech features. We present speech features enhancement strategy that improves speech emotion recognition. We used the INTERSPEECH 2010 challenge feature-set. We identified subsets from the features set and applied principle component analysis to the subsets. Finally, the features are fused horizontally. The resulting feature set is analyzed using t-distributed neighbour embeddings (t-SNE) before the application of features for emotion recognition. The method is compared with the state-of-the-art methods used in the literature. The empirical evidence is drawn using two well-known datasets: Berlin Emotional Speech Dataset (EMO-DB) and Ryerson Audio-Visual Database of Emotional Speech and Song (RAVDESS) for two languages, German and English, respectively. Our method achieved an average recognition gain of 11.5% for six out of seven emotions for the EMO-DB dataset, and 13.8% for seven out of eight emotions for the RAVDESS dataset as compared to the baseline study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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