MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409209942 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-95734-z

Speech emotion recognition with light weight deep neural ensemble model using hand crafted features

2025· article· en· W4409209942 on OpenAlexafffund
Jaher Hassan Chowdhury, Sheela Ramanna, Ketan Kotecha

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotion and Mood Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaShastri Indo-Canadian Institute
KeywordsComputer scienceSpeech recognitionArtificial intelligenceDeep neural networksEmotion recognitionNatural language processingArtificial neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations29
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicEmotion and Mood RecognitionFrench-language works237,207