MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analisis Perbandingan Optimasi Stochastic Gradient Descent dan Adaptive Moment Estimation dalam Klasifikasi Emosi dari Audio Menggunakan Convolutional Neural Network

2025· article· en· W4415152872 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aldelia Jocelyn Tutuhatunewa, Dorteus L. Rahakbauw, Zeth Arthur Leleury

Bibliographic record

VenueTensor Pure and Applied Mathematics Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStochastic gradient descentConvolutional neural networkMoment (physics)Gradient descentFocus (optics)Emotion recognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emotion plays a fundamental role in human life, influencing behavior, social interaction, anddecision-making. Successful communication and understanding between individuals depend greatly on ourability to recognize and express emotions. In this context, sound or audio plays a key role as a medium thatreflects and conveys human emotional expression. In the era of information technology and artificialintelligence, emotion recognition through sound has become a growing focus of research. Machine learningalgorithms, particularly neural networks, can be trained to understand and classify emotions conveyed invarious forms, including text, images, videos, and audio. Among these algorithms, Convolutional NeuralNetwork (CNN) has shown promising performance in emotion classification tasks. In this study, thecomparison between Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) and Adaptive Moment Estimation (Adam)optimizers in emotion classification from audio using CNN is investigated. The research aims to determinethe optimal optimizer for emotion classification tasks. The results suggest that SGD optimizer outperformsAdam in terms of overall accuracy, with SGD achieving 53% accuracy compared to Adam's 48% accuracy inThe Ryerson Audio-Visual Database of Emotional Speech and Song (RAVDESS) dataset. Therefore, foremotion classification from audio data, Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) optimizer is recommended forbetter performance.

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)0.003
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTensor Pure and Applied Mathematics JournalSame topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207