MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Maximizing SER Performance with ICR-SEA: A Novel Framework for Grid-Search Optimization

2025· article· en· W4412624670 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tarun Rathi, Manoj Tripathy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGridDistributed computingMathematical optimizationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This proposed work develops a novel strategy to optimize CNN-LSTM (Convolutional Neural Network-Long Short-Term Memory for SER (Speech Emotion Recognition) using Mel-spectrograms as input features with the RAVDESS (Ryerson Audio-Visual Database of Emotional Speech and Song) data corpus. Data pre-preparation, including dataset class balancing and augmentation improves model generalization. The hyperparameter tuning strategy employs the Iterative Candidate Refinement with Successive Epoch Adjustment (ICR-SEA) algorithm, which efficiently tunes the CNN-LSTM architecture and training parameters. This approach systematically filters best candidates while dynamically adjusting the number of training epochs, ensuring computational effectiveness. This hyperparameter tuning process investigates changes in convolutional filters, kernel sizes, dense layer sizes, dropout rates, batch sizes, learning rates, and epochs. The top-performing candidate model is precisely evaluated and filtered for the next iteration. The optimized model reaches a classification accuracy of 85.36% approximately during hyperparameter tuning. This research emphasizes the effectiveness of the ICR-SEA algorithm in hyperparameter optimization and the significance of data augmentation in improving the generalizability and performance of emotion recognition systems, setting a benchmark for future work with the RAVDESS 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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed and Parallel Computing SystemsFrench-language works237,207