MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393148298 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4138292/v1

A Comparative Analysis of Deep Learning Models for Multi-class Speech Emotion Detection

2024· preprint· en· W4393148298 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
V. Anchana, N. M. Elango

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotion and Mood Recognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClass (philosophy)Speech recognitionComputer scienceEmotion detectionDeep learningArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingEmotion recognitionPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<title>Abstract</title> In today's digital age, where communication transcends traditional boundaries, the exploration of deep learning models for Speech Emotion Recognition (SER) holds immense significance. As we increasingly interact through digital platforms, understanding and interpreting emotions becomes crucial. Deep learning models, with their ability to autonomously learn intricate patterns and representations, offer unparalleled potential in enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of SER systems. This project delves into models for multi-class speech emotion recognition on the Ryerson Audio-Visual Database of Emotional Speech and Song (RAVDESS). The RAVDESS dataset contains 1440 speech audio recordings from 24 professional actors, expressing 8 different emotions: neutral, calm, happy, sad, angry, fearful, surprise, and disgust. Models including Deep Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs), Long Short-Term Memory networks (LSTMs), Gated Recurrent Units (GRUs), Temporal Convolutional Networks (TCNs), and ensembles were developed. Additionally, data augmentation through pitch shifting, noise injection, and a combination thereof expanded the dataset. Besides spectrogram inputs, handcrafted audio features like Mel Frequency Cepstral Coefficients (MFCCs), Chroma Short-time Fourier transform, root mean square, and zero crossing rate were experimented with as inputs to further boost model performance. The best-performing models were a Temporal Convolutional Network (TCN), achieving 96.88% testing accuracy, and a Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) achieving 97.04% testing accuracy in classifying the 8 emotions, outperforming previous benchmark results on this dataset.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.287
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicEmotion and Mood RecognitionFrench-language works237,207