English Speech Emotion Classification Based on Multi-Objective Differential Evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speech signals involve speakers’ emotional states and language information, which is very important for human–computer interaction that recognizes speakers’ emotions. Feature selection is a common method for improving recognition accuracy. In this paper, we propose a multi-objective optimization method based on differential evolution (MODE-NSF) that maximizes recognition accuracy and minimizes the number of selected features (NSF). First, the Mel-frequency cepstral coefficient (MFCC) features and pitch features are extracted from speech signals. Then, the proposed algorithm implements feature selection where the NSF guides the initialization, crossover, and mutation of the algorithm. We used four English speech emotion datasets, and K-nearest neighbor (KNN) and random forest (RF) classifiers to validate the performance of the proposed algorithm. The results illustrate that MODE-NSF is superior to other multi-objective algorithms in terms of the hypervolume (HV), inverted generational distance (IGD), Pareto optimal solutions, and running time. MODE-NSF achieved an accuracy of 49% using eNTERFACE05, 53% using the Ryerson audio-visual database of emotional speech and song (RAVDESS), 76% using Surrey audio-visual expressed emotion (SAVEE) database, and 98% using the Toronto emotional speech set (TESS). MODE-NSF obtained good recognition results, which provides a basis for the establishment of emotional models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".