ARE Mamba-Based Audio Foundation Models the Best Fit for Non-Verbal Emotion Recognition?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we focus on non-verbal vocal sounds emotion recognition (NVER). We investigate mamba-based audio foundation models (MAFMs) for the first time for NVER and hypothesize that MAFMs will outperform attention-based audio foundation models (AAFMs) for NVER by leveraging its state-space modeling to capture intrinsic emotional structures more effectively. Unlike AAFMs, which may amplify irrelevant patterns due to their attention mechanisms, MAFMs will extract more stable and context-aware representations, enabling better differentiation of subtle non-verbal emotional cues. Our experiments with state-of-the-art (SOTA) AAFMs and MAFMs validates our hypothesis. Further, motivated from related research such as speech emotion recognition, synthetic speech detection, where fusion of foundation models (FMs) have showed improved performance, we also explore fusion of FMs for NVER. To this end, we propose, RENO, that uses renyidivergence as a novel loss function for effective alignment of the FMs. It also makes use of self-attention for better intrarepresentation interaction of the FMs. With RENO, through the heterogeneous fusion of MAFMs and AAFMs, we show the topmost performance in comparison to individual FMs, its fusion and also setting SOTA in comparison to previous SOTA work.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".