Speech emotion recognition with light weight deep neural ensemble model using hand crafted features
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automatic emotion detection has become crucial in various domains, such as healthcare, neuroscience, smart home technologies, and human-computer interaction (HCI). Speech Emotion Recognition (SER) has attracted considerable attention because of its potential to improve conversational robotics and human-computer interaction (HCI) systems. Despite its promise, SER research faces challenges such as data scarcity, the subjective nature of emotions, and complex feature extraction methods. In this paper, we seek to investigate whether a lightweight deep neural ensemble model (CNN and CNN_Bi-LSTM) using well-known hand-crafted features such as ZCR, RMSE, Chroma STFT, and MFCC would outperform models that use automatic feature extraction techniques (e.g., spectrogram-based methods) on benchmarked datasets. The focus of this paper is on the effectiveness of careful fine-tuning of the neural models with learning rate (LR) schedulers and applying regularization techniques. Our proposed ensemble model is validated using five publicly available datasets: RAVDESS, TESS, SAVEE, CREMA-D, and EmoDB. Accuracy, AUC-ROC, AUC-PRC, and F1-score metrics were used for performance testing, and the LIME (Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations) technique was used for interpreting the results of our proposed ensemble model. Results indicate that our ensemble model consistently outperforms individual models, as well as several compared models which include spectrogram-based models for the above datasets in terms of the evaluation metrics.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it