Speech Emotion Recognition Using Convolutional Neural Networks with Attention Mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speech Emotion Recognition (SER) is an interesting and difficult problem to handle. In this paper, we deal with it through the implementation of deep learning networks. We have designed and implemented six different deep learning networks, a Deep Belief Network (DBN), a simple deep neural network (SDNN), a LSTM network (LSTM), a LSTM network with the addition of an attention mechanism (LSTM-ATN), a Convolutional neural network (CNN), and a Convolutional neural network with the addition of an attention mechanism (CNN-ATN), having in mind, apart from solving the SER problem, to test the impact of attention mechanism to the results. Dropout and Batch Normalization techniques are also used to improve the generalization ability (prevention of overfitting) of the models as well as to speed up the training process. The Surrey Audio-Visual Expressed Emotion database (SAVEE), and the Ryerson Audio-Visual Database (RAVDESS) database were used for training and evaluation of our models. The results showed that networks with the addition of the attention mechanism did better than the others. Furthermore, they showed that CNN-ATN was the best among tested networks, achieving an accuracy of 74% for the SAVEE and 77% for the RAVDESS dataset, and exceeded existing state-of-the-art systems for the same datasets.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".