Evaluating raw waveforms with deep learning frameworks for speech emotion recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Speech emotion recognition is a challenging task in speech processing field. For this reason, feature extraction process has a crucial importance to demonstrate and process the speech signals. In this work, we represent a model, which feeds raw audio files directly into the deep neural networks without any feature extraction stage for the recognition of emotions utilizing six different data sets, namely, The Berlin Database of Emotional Speech (EMO-DB), Ryerson Audio-Visual Database of Emotional Speech and Song (RAVDESS), Toronto Emotional Speech Database (TESS), Crowd-sourced Emotional Multimodal Actors (CREMA), Surrey Audio-Visual Expressed Emotion (SAVEE), and TESS+RAVDESS. To demonstrate the contribution of proposed model, the performance of traditional feature extraction techniques namely, mel-scale spectogram, mel-frequency cepstral coefficients, are blended with machine learning algorithms, ensemble learning methods, deep and hybrid deep learning techniques. Support vector machine, decision tree, naive Bayes, random forests models are evaluated as machine learning algorithms while majority voting and stacking methods are assessed as ensemble learning techniques. Moreover, convolutional neural networks, long short-term memory networks, and hybrid CNN-LSTM model are evaluated as deep learning techniques and compared with machine learning and ensemble learning methods. To demonstrate the effectiveness of proposed model, the comparison with state-of-the-art studies are carried out. Based on the experiment results, CNN model excels existent approaches with 95.86% of accuracy for TESS+RAVDESS data set using raw audio files, thence determining the new state-of-the-art. The proposed model performs 90.34% of accuracy for EMO-DB with CNN model, 90.42% of accuracy for RAVDESS with CNN model, 99.48% of accuracy for TESS with LSTM model, 69.72% of accuracy for CREMA with CNN model, 85.76% of accuracy for SAVEE with CNN model in speaker-independent audio categorization problems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".