Multimodal Emotion Recognition via Convolutional Neural Networks: Comparison of different strategies on two multimodal datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to investigate emotion recognition using a multimodal approach that exploits convolutional neural networks (CNNs) with multiple input. Multimodal approaches allow different modalities to cooperate in order to achieve generally better performances because different features are extracted from different pieces of information. In this work, the facial frames, the optical flow computed from consecutive facial frames, and the Mel Spectrograms (from the word melody) are extracted from videos and combined together in different ways to understand which modality combination works better. Several experiments are run on the models by first considering one modality at a time so that good accuracy results are found on each modality. Afterward, the models are concatenated to create a final model that allows multiple inputs. For the experiments the datasets used are BAUM-1 ((Bahçeşehir University Multimodal Affective Database - 1) and RAVDESS (Ryerson Audio–Visual Database of Emotional Speech and Song), which both collect two distinguished sets of videos based on the different intensity of the expression, that is acted/strong or spontaneous/normal, providing the representations of the following emotional states that will be taken into consideration: angry, disgust, fearful, happy and sad. The performances of the proposed models are shown through accuracy results and some confusion matrices, demonstrating better accuracy than the compared proposals in the literature. The best accuracy achieved on BAUM-1 dataset is about 95%, while on RAVDESS it is about 95.5%.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".