MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388722993 · doi:10.3390/app132212410

A Feature Selection Algorithm Based on Differential Evolution for English Speech Emotion Recognition

2023· article· en· W4388722993 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Liya Yue, Pei Hu, Shu‐Chuan Chu, Jeng‐Shyang Pan

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAdvanced Computing and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJilin Office of Philosophy and Social Science
KeywordsComputer scienceSpeech recognitionArtificial intelligenceClassifier (UML)Mel-frequency cepstrumFeature selectionDiscrete cosine transformPattern recognition (psychology)PopulationProsodyDifferential evolutionFeature extraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The automatic identification of emotions from speech holds significance in facilitating interactions between humans and machines. To improve the recognition accuracy of speech emotion, we extract mel-frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCCs) and pitch features from raw signals, and an improved differential evolution (DE) algorithm is utilized for feature selection based on K-nearest neighbor (KNN) and random forest (RF) classifiers. The proposed multivariate DE (MDE) adopts three mutation strategies to solve the slow convergence of the classical DE and maintain population diversity, and employs a jumping method to avoid falling into local traps. The simulations are conducted on four public English speech emotion datasets: eNTERFACE05, Ryerson Audio-Visual Database of Emotional Speech and Song (RAVDESS), Surrey Audio-Visual Expressed Emotion (SAEE), and Toronto Emotional Speech Set (TESS), and they cover a diverse range of emotions. The MDE algorithm is compared with PSO-assisted biogeography-based optimization (BBO_PSO), DE, and the sine cosine algorithm (SCA) on emotion recognition error, number of selected features, and running time. From the results obtained, MDE obtains the errors of 0.5270, 0.5044, 0.4490, and 0.0420 in eNTERFACE05, RAVDESS, SAVEE, and TESS based on the KNN classifier, and the errors of 0.4721, 0.4264, 0.3283 and 0.0114 based on the RF classifier. The proposed algorithm demonstrates excellent performance in emotion recognition accuracy, and it finds meaningful acoustic features from MFCCs and pitch.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicAdvanced Computing and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207