Iterative Feature Boosting for Explainable Speech Emotion Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In speech emotion recognition (SER), using predefined features without considering their practical importance may lead to high dimensional datasets, including redundant and irrelevant information. Consequently, high-dimensional learning often results in decreasing model accuracy while increasing computational complexity. Our work underlines the importance of carefully considering and analyzing features in order to build efficient SER systems. We present a new supervised SER method based on an efficient feature engineering approach. We pay particular attention to the explainability of results to evaluate feature relevance and refine feature sets. This is performed iteratively through feature evaluation loop, using Shapley values to boost feature selection and improve overall framework performance. Our approach allows thus to balance the benefits between model performance and transparency. The proposed method outperforms human-level performance (HLP) and state-of-the-art machine learning methods in emotion recognition on the TESS dataset. The source code of this paper is publicly available at Iterative-Feature-Boosting-for-Explainable-Speech-Emotion-Recoanition.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".