Speech Emotion Recognition from Audio Data Using LSTM Model
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
The capacity to comprehend and interact with others through language is the most valuable human ability. Since emotions are crucial to communication, we are well-trained to recognize and interpret the many emotions we encounter. Contrary to popular assumption, the subjective aspect of human mood makes emotion recognition difficult for computers. There are some works based on Emotion recognition using images, text, and audio. We are here working on the audio dataset to find the accurate human emotion for computers to understand. In this work, we have utilized a Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) model to implement Speech Emotion Recognition (SER) from Audio data on two different datasets: the Toronto Emotional Speech Set (TESS) and the Ryerson Audio-Visual Database of Emotional Speech and Song (RAVDESS). The accuracy rates of our LSTM-based model were impressive, with 91.25% for the RAVDESS dataset and 98.05% for the TESS dataset; the combined accuracy for both datasets was 87.66%. These results highlight the effectiveness of the LSTM model in effectively identifying and categorizing emotional states from audio files. The study adds significant knowledge to the field of speech emotion recognition by emphasizing the model’s ability to handle a variety of datasets and its potential.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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