MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400041227 · doi:10.18280/ts.410344

Effect of Data Augmentation, Cross-Validation Methods in Robustness of Explainable Speech Based Emotion Recognition

2024· article· en· W4400041227 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ashwini S. Shinde, Vaishali V. Patil

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Speech recognitionEmotion recognitionComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Robust and interpretable speech emotion recognition (SER) is pivotal to handle real time noisy conditions as well as to adapt the language and speaking style variations.In this work, the proposed feature vector is validated using the German database EMoDB for speaker dependent (SD) and speaker independent (SI) approaches.Data augmentation techniques of time shifting, pitch shifting and adding Gaussian noise are employed along with data balancing.The baseline feature set includes spectral features of mel-frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCC) and log Mel spectrogram-based features along with time domain features of zero crossing rate and root mean square energy.Proposed reduced feature set is fusion of baseline features with discrete wavelet transform (DWT) based statistical features selected through ANOVA and reduced chroma features obtained using principal component analysis (PCA).Proposed reduced feature vector is validated by support vector machine (SVM), multilayer perceptron (MLP), and Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) classification with holdout and stratified k-fold (k=5, K=10) cross-validation.In speaker-dependent approach, with 10-fold cross-validation accuracy is improved from 73.07%, 74.94%, 71.02% to 93.18%, 94.07%, 87.15% for SVM, MLP and XGBoost classifier respectively.The contribution of discriminative features of proposed reduced feature set in emotion prediction is explained with the Shapley Additive Explanations module.

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)0.004
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207