WavFusion: Towards wav2vec 2.0 Multimodal Speech Emotion Recognition

Feng Li; Jiusong Luo; Wanjun Xia

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 27 references

WavFusion: Towards wav2vec 2.0 Multimodal Speech Emotion Recognition

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read WavFusion claims multimodal wav2vec 2.0 emotion recognition beats prior state of the art on IEMOCAP and MELD.

desk verdict Reasonable architecture, unproven numbers: the IEMOCAP sweeps look like test-set tuning, and the under-1-point gains have no error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05558 v1 pith:KSZWSC6I submitted 2024-12-07 cs.SD cs.AIcs.CVcs.MMeess.AS

Feng Li , Jiusong Luo , Wanjun Xia This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.SDcs.AIcs.CVcs.MMeess.AS

keywords speechemotionrecognitionmultimodalfusionwav2vec2.0gatedcross-modalattentionhomogeneousfeaturediscrepancymarginlossIEMOCAPMELD

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes WavFusion, a speech emotion recognition model that fuses audio with text and visual cues inside wav2vec 2.0. The authors' central claim is that injecting text and visual features through a gated cross-modal attention mechanism, plus training with a margin loss that pulls same-emotion features from different modalities together while pushing same-modality different-emotion features apart, creates richer and more discriminative representations. On IEMOCAP they report 70.53% accuracy and 70.6% weighted F1, beating the prior best by 0.84 and 0.74 percentage points; on MELD they report 66.93% accuracy and 66.1% weighted F1, beating the prior best by 0.43 and 0.44 points. If these numbers are right, the model shows that a lightly fine-tuned pretrained speech encoder can serve as the backbone for competitive multimodal emotion recognition.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the gated cross-modal attention mechanism in the deep transformer layers of wav2vec 2.0: text features $X^t_j$ and visual features $X^v_j$ are combined with audio features $X^a_j$ through cross-modal attention, and a learnable gate $P^* = \sigma(\mathrm{FC}(X^{F1}_j \oplus X^{F2}_j))$ blends the two augmented streams as $X^F_j = P^* \odot X^{F1}_j + (1-P^*) \odot X^{F2}_j$. The second component is the multimodal homogeneous feature discrepancy margin loss $L_{\mathrm{mar}}$ of Eq. (13), which uses cosine similarity over a shared encoder with margin $\alpha$ to enforce same-emotion/different-modality closeness and same-modality/different-emotion separation. The A-GRU-LVC module supplies visual features by adding a learnable visual center with 1D convolution to the global GRU-plus-self-attention path, capturing local spatial details.

What would settle it

Retrain WavFusion on IEMOCAP with the described five-fold protocol, tuning λ and the shallow/deep split only on the first four sessions as validation, then evaluate on session 5; if the resulting accuracy and weighted F1 do not reach the reported 70.53 and 70.6, or no longer exceed the strongest prior method, the central state-of-the-art claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

WavFusion's central claim is that the large pretrained audio representations of wav2vec 2.0 can drive multimodal emotion recognition, provided cross-modal fusion is gated to suppress redundant or misleading information. The paper inserts a gated cross-modal attention mechanism into the deep transformer layers of wav2vec 2.0, replacing ordinary self-attention in those layers with attention that conditions on text and visual features. It then applies a margin loss on a shared-encoder projection of the three unimodal features so that representations of the same emotion across different modalities are pulled together while representations of the same modality with different emotions are pushed apart. The reported result is that this combination outperforms previous state-of-the-art systems on both IEMOCAP and MELD.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the reported test numbers were produced honestly: specifically, that the balance factor λ and the 9-shallow/3-deep transformer split were chosen using the training and validation portions (the first four IEMOCAP sessions), not by peeking at the held-out test session, despite the paper reporting these sweeps as selecting 'optimal performance' on IEMOCAP.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A frozen or lightly fine-tuned wav2vec 2.0 can serve as the main fusion backbone for multimodal emotion recognition, with only the deep transformer layers updated during training.
Gated cross-modal attention is more effective than plain concatenation: Table 6 shows the 12-layer concatenation baseline at 66.67 ACC versus 70.53 ACC with the 9-shallow/3-deep gated attention split.
The margin loss is essential: removing it (λ = 0) drops IEMOCAP accuracy from 70.53 to 67.89, while setting it too high (λ = 10) drops accuracy to 64.43, so the balance factor must be tuned carefully.
Local visual details matter: omitting the LVC block reduces IEMOCAP accuracy by 0.63 points and weighted F1 by 0.76 points.
Multimodal fusion is the source of the gain: audio-only reaches 66.06 ACC while audio+text+visual reaches 70.53 ACC on IEMOCAP.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the reported gains survive a strictly separated validation protocol, the same gated-fusion recipe could transfer to other pretrained audio encoders and to tasks such as multimodal sentiment analysis or audiovisual speech recognition.
The margin loss defines a harder contrastive task than typical unimodal contrastive learning because it contrasts same-emotion cross-modal pairs against same-modality different-emotion pairs; a natural test is whether it also helps in low-data settings where pretrained encoders stay frozen.
The paper reports single numbers without significance tests; a natural extension is repeated-seed evaluation on the held-out session to see whether the 0.4 to 0.8 point margins over prior systems are stable.
The LVC block with 1D convolution suggests local visual cues live in channel-wise patterns; ablating the global self-attention path and the local LVC path separately would clarify which visual information drives the gain.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

WavFusion is a straightforward extension: put gated cross-modal attention into the deep layers of wav2vec 2.0, add a margin loss to align same-emotion embeddings across modalities, and report small gains on IEMOCAP and MELD. The architecture is not revolutionary, but the specific combination is new and the ablation study is genuinely informative. The gating mechanism and the margin loss each get a clean ablation, and the layer-split sweep (Table 6) shows the design choices matter. I believe the method works roughly as described.

The problem is the evaluation. The stress-test concern lands. Section 3.1 does not specify which subset of sessions 1–4 is used for validation, and Tables 5 and 6 report sweeps that pick 'optimal performance on the IEMOCAP dataset' without saying the test session was held out. If those sweeps scored session 5, the reported 70.53/70.60 are test-set-tuned numbers, and the SOTA claim is void. Even if they did use an internal validation split, the absence of error bars and significance tests leaves the under-1-point gains uninterpretable. I cannot tell from the text whether the numbers are honest or just lucky.

There are also minor typos: Eq. (10) concatenates X_F1 with X_F1 (should be X_F2), and the margin-loss description says 'same emotion but different emotions.' Those are cosmetic.

So my take: the architecture is a legitimate extension, the ablations are useful, but the central empirical claim is not established. A revision with a clearly documented validation split, multiple runs, and code release could change that. This paper deserves a serious referee, because the flaw is checkable and fixable, and the idea is not nonsense. But I would not cite the current version.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes WavFusion, a multimodal speech emotion recognition model that injects text and visual features into a wav2vec 2.0 backbone via a gated cross-modal attention mechanism in the deep transformer layers, plus a multimodal homogeneous feature discrepancy margin loss. The model is evaluated on IEMOCAP and MELD, reporting ACC/WF1 gains over prior state-of-the-art methods: 70.53/70.60 on IEMOCAP and 66.93/66.10 on MELD. Ablations on IEMOCAP study modality contributions, the LVC block for visual local features, the margin-loss weight lambda, and the split between shallow and deep transformer layers.

Significance. If the empirical claims were cleanly established, the contribution would be a useful, incremental advance in multimodal SER: it adapts and fine-tunes wav2vec 2.0 with cross-modal gating and a margin loss designed to handle cross-modal heterogeneity. The paper is honest about its design goals and provides a reasonable set of ablations. However, the reported state-of-the-art improvements are small (under one percentage point) and rest entirely on the correctness of the evaluation protocol. The paper does not ship code, and no error bars or significance tests are reported, so the current evidence is not strong enough to support the headline claim.

major comments (5)

[§3.1 and §3.4, Tables 5 and 6] The paper does not establish that the IEMOCAP test session was held out during model selection. Section 3.1 says the first four sessions are used as the training set and validation set and the last session as the test set, but it never specifies which subset of sessions 1-4 is the validation set. Tables 5 and 6 then report sweeps over lambda and over the shallow/deep transformer split, and the text states that 'the optimal performance on the IEMOCAP dataset' is achieved at lambda=1 and at the 9/3 split. If these sweeps were scored on the test session, the headline 70.53 ACC / 70.60 WF1 is the result of test-set tuning rather than an unbiased comparison to the baselines. This is the central load-bearing issue for the paper's main claim, and it must be resolved by either specifying an explicit validation split and showing that the reported test numbers were not used for selection, or by rerunning the experiments under a clean protocol.
[§3.3, Tables 1 and 2] No error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported, and the claimed improvements over the previous state of the art are 0.84/0.74 percentage points on IEMOCAP and 0.43/0.44 percentage points on MELD. For a single train/test split (or a single fold, given the ambiguous 'five-fold' description), differences of this size can easily be within run-to-run and session-to-session variability. The manuscript needs repeated runs, standard deviations, or a significance test before the state-of-the-art claim can be evaluated; otherwise the numerical margins are not informative.
[§2.2, Eq. (10)] The gated filtering mechanism as written is degenerate: the gate P* is computed from FC(X_F1 ⊕ X_F1), i.e., twice the same text-augmented feature, so the visual branch X_F2 cannot influence the gate. If this is a typo and the intended input is X_F1 ⊕ X_F2, the equation should be corrected; if it is not a typo, the claimed gating of cross-modal information is not implemented as described. This affects the reproducibility of the central fusion mechanism.
[§2.2, Eq. (13)] The definition of the margin loss contains an internal inconsistency: the text says 'positive samples refer to the same emotion but different emotions,' which is incoherent, and the preceding sentence says the loss enhances interactions between 'the same emotions but different modalities.' The intended contrast is presumably same emotion across different modalities (positive) versus same modality across different emotions (negative). The equation and the surrounding prose must be aligned before the loss can be implemented by a reader.
[§3.1] The protocol description is self-contradictory: the text says 'we employ a five-fold cross-validation approach' but then describes only one fixed split (first four sessions for training/validation, last session for testing). A five-fold scheme would rotate the test session, whereas the described evaluation uses only session 5 as test. This inconsistency matters both for reproducibility and for comparing with baselines whose reported numbers may come from different IEMOCAP protocols.

minor comments (4)

[Global] There are numerous typos and formatting errors, including 'arhitecture', 'learming', 'diffferent', 'T able', and broken table captions; the paper needs a careful proofreading pass.
[§2.2] The paper calls EfficientNet 'a self-supervised framework for visual representation learning,' but EfficientNet is a supervised CNN architecture; this description should be corrected.
[§3.2] The sentence 'The last dimension of the speech features are 768 and 64' is unclear: it presumably means the text/visual features have dimensions 768 and 64, and the acoustic features also have some dimension, but the numbers are not clearly attributed.
[§2.2, Eq. (4)] The symbol X_v^j is used both for the output of the A-GRU-LVC block and, in Eq. (3), for the output of an LVC block; the notation should be made distinct to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation; the SOTA claim is empirical and self-contained, with a separate test-set-tuning concern that is a reproducibility risk rather than a circularity.

full rationale

WavFusion is an empirical systems paper: its central claim is that the proposed architecture (gated cross-modal attention, A-GRU-LVC, homogeneous-feature margin loss) improves ACC and WF1 on IEMOCAP and MELD. There is no derivation chain in which an output quantity is defined in terms of the quantity it purports to predict. The losses are defined independently of the reported metrics: Eq. (13) is a margin loss over cosine similarities and Eq. (15) is a weighted sum with cross-entropy, neither of which constructs the test accuracy by definition. The reported tables are benchmark comparisons, not predictions from fitted parameters. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the references to prior work by the authors' group are standard baselines and building blocks (e.g., [20] for LVC), none of which supplies the SOTA claim. The hyperparameter sweeps over lambda and transformer-split in Section 3.4 are described as yielding 'optimal performance on the IEMOCAP dataset' without stating that a separate validation subset of the first four sessions was used; if those sweeps used the test session, the headline gains would be unfair, but that is an experimental-protocol risk, not a circular equivalence, because the reported accuracy is not equal by construction to an input of the model. Per the hard rules, such a concern belongs to correctness or reproducibility, not to circularity. The circularity score is therefore 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on four free hyperparameters, two of which are tuned on the evaluation benchmark, and on unstated domain assumptions about pretrained features and the learnability of cross-modal alignment. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

lambda (margin loss weight) = 1
Chosen by sweeping lambda = 0, 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10 on IEMOCAP; reported in Table 5.
alpha (margin distance) = not stated
Equation 13 includes margin alpha, but its value is not reported.
Transformer layer split (shallow/deep) = 9/3
Selected from a grid over 11/1, 10/2, 9/3, and 8/4 on IEMOCAP; reported in Table 6.
Gated fusion weights P* = learned
Equations 10 through 11 define a learned gating signal via a fully connected layer and sigmoid.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Pretrained encoders (wav2vec 2.0, RoBERTa, EfficientNet) provide suitable general representations for emotion recognition.
Section 2.2 uses features from frozen or partially fine-tuned models directly, with no task-specific evidence that these representations carry usable emotional content.
domain assumption A shared linear encoder can project heterogeneous unimodal features into a common space where cosine similarity is meaningful for classification.
Section 2.2, Equation 12: the shared encoder is a simple linear layer; the alignment is assumed learnable.
domain assumption The triplet margin loss in Equation 13 can be optimized jointly with cross-entropy without harming classification.
Table 5 shows benefit at lambda = 1 but degradation at lambda = 10; there is no theoretical or empirical guarantee across settings.
standard math Cross-entropy and margin losses are standard objectives that behave as expected under stochastic optimization.
Equations 13 through 15 use standard cosine margin and cross-entropy losses, but the interaction effects are not analyzed.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of WavFusion: Towards wav2vec 2.0 Multimodal Speech Emotion Recognition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KSZWSC6I

@misc{pith2026241205558,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: WavFusion: Towards wav2vec 2.0 Multimodal Speech Emotion Recognition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KSZWSC6I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05558}
}

read the original abstract

Speech emotion recognition (SER) remains a challenging yet crucial task due to the inherent complexity and diversity of human emotions. To address this problem, researchers attempt to fuse information from other modalities via multimodal learning. However, existing multimodal fusion techniques often overlook the intricacies of cross-modal interactions, resulting in suboptimal feature representations. In this paper, we propose WavFusion, a multimodal speech emotion recognition framework that addresses critical research problems in effective multimodal fusion, heterogeneity among modalities, and discriminative representation learning. By leveraging a gated cross-modal attention mechanism and multimodal homogeneous feature discrepancy learning, WavFusion demonstrates improved performance over existing state-of-the-art methods on benchmark datasets. Our work highlights the importance of capturing nuanced cross-modal interactions and learning discriminative representations for accurate multimodal SER. Experimental results on two benchmark datasets (IEMOCAP and MELD) demonstrate that WavFusion succeeds over the state-of-the-art strategies on emotion recognition.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05558 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The overview of WavFusion. where FSA and FGRU denote the learning functions of GRU and self-attentive mechanism, respectively. Simultaneously, to preserve local corner point regions and extract local information, a learnable visual center (LVC) is implemented on the visual features [20]. This LVC aggregates features from local areas, ensuring that important local information is retained. In contrast to the approach… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[1]

Pattern recognition, 44(3):572–587 (2011)

Ayadi, M.E., Kamel, M.S., and Karray., F.: Survey on speech emotion recognition: Features, classification schemes, and databases. Pattern recognition, 44(3):572–587 (2011)

work page 2011
[2]

In 2021 7th International Conference on Computer and Communications (ICCC), pages 514–518 (2021)

Li, X., Lin, R.: Speech emotion recognition for power customer service. In 2021 7th International Conference on Computer and Communications (ICCC), pages 514–518 (2021)

work page 2021
[3]

In Third international conference on natural computation (ICNC 2007), volume 5, pages 809–813 (2007)

Li, W., Zhang, Y., Fu, Y.: Speech emotion recognition in e-learning system based on affective computing. In Third international conference on natural computation (ICNC 2007), volume 5, pages 809–813 (2007)

work page 2007
[4]

In 2022 IEEE 8th World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT), pages 1–6 (2022)

Elsayed, E., ElSayed, Z, Asadizanjani, N., et al.: Speech emotion recognition using supervised deep recurrent system for mental health monitoring. In 2022 IEEE 8th World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT), pages 1–6 (2022)

work page 2022
[5]

In Applied Information Processing Systems: Proceedings of ICCET 2021, pages 83–92

Ahire, V., Borse, S.: Emotion detection from social media using machine learning techniques: a survey. In Applied Information Processing Systems: Proceedings of ICCET 2021, pages 83–92. Springer (2022)

work page 2022
[6]

In 2017 seventh international conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction Workshops and Demos (ACIIW), pages 79–80 (2017)

Calefato, F., Lanubile, F., Novielli, N.: Emotxt: a toolkit for emotion recognition from text. In 2017 seventh international conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction Workshops and Demos (ACIIW), pages 79–80 (2017)

work page 2017
[7]

In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 30 (2016)

You, Q., Luo, J., Jin, H., et al.: Building a large scale dataset for image emo- tion recognition: The fine print and the benchmark. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 30 (2016)

work page 2016
[8]

Multimodal emotion recognitionusingdeeplearning

Abdullah, S.S, Ameen, S.A., Sadeeq, A.: and Subhi Zeebaree. Multimodal emotion recognitionusingdeeplearning. JournalofAppliedScienceandTechnologyTrends, 2(02):52–58 (2021)

work page 2021

Show all 27 references

[9]

In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 6269– 6273 (2021)

Wu, W., Zhang, C, Woodland, p.: Emotion recognition by fusing time synchronous and time asynchronous representations. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 6269– 6273 (2021)

2021
[10]

In AVSP 2001-International Conference on Auditory-Visual Speech Processing (2001)

Grant, K.W., Greenberg, S.: Speech intelligibility derived from asynchronous pro- cessing of auditory-visual information. In AVSP 2001-International Conference on Auditory-Visual Speech Processing (2001)

2001
[11]

In Proceedings of the conference

Tsai, Y.H.H., Bai, S.J., Liang, P.P., et al.: Multimodal transformer for unaligned multimodal language sequences. In Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting, volume 2019, page 6558. NIH Public Access (2019)

2019
[12]

IEEE Transactions on Multimedia (2022)

Zheng, J., Zhang, S., Wang, Z., et al.: Multi-channel weight-sharing autoencoder based on cascade multi-head attention for multimodal emotion recognition. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia (2022)

2022
[13]

IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29:3592–3603 (2021)

Chen, B., Cao, Q., Hou, M., et al.: Multimodal emotion recognition with tem- poral and semantic consistency. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29:3592–3603 (2021)

2021
[14]

In Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on multimedia, pages 1122–1131 (2020)

Hazarika, D., Zimmermann, R., Poria, S.: Misa: Modality-invariant and-specific representations for multimodal sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on multimedia, pages 1122–1131 (2020)

2020
[15]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.07637 (2020)

Mao, Y., Sun, Q., Liu, G., et al.: Dialoguetrm: Exploring the intra-and inter-modal emotional behaviors in the conversation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.07637 (2020)

2020 arXiv
[16]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.06779 (2021) 12 F

Hu, L., Liu, Y., Zhao, J., et al.: Mmgcn: Multimodal fusion via deep graph convolution network for emotion recognition in conversation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.06779 (2021) 12 F. Li et al

2021 arXiv
[17]

In ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7037– 7041 (2022)

Hu, D., Hou, X., Wei, L., et al.: Mm-dfn: Multimodal dynamic fusion network for emotion recognition in conversations. In ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7037– 7041 (2022)

2022
[18]

In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4652–4661 (2022)

Chudasama, V., Kar, P., Gudmalwar, A., et al.: M2fnet: Multi-modal fusion net- work for emotion recognition in conversation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4652–4661 (2022)

2022
[19]

Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:12449–12460 (2020)

Baevski, A., Zhou, Y., Mohamed, A., et al.: wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self- supervised learning of speech representations. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:12449–12460 (2020)

2020
[20]

Centralized feature pyramid for object detection

Quan, Y, Zhang, D, Zhang, L., et al.:. Centralized feature pyramid for object detection. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 2023

2023
[21]

Language resources and evaluation, 42:335–359 (2008)

Busso, C., Bulut, M., Le, C., et al.: Iemocap: Interactive emotional dyadic motion capture database. Language resources and evaluation, 42:335–359 (2008)

2008
[22]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.02508 (2018)

Poria, S., Hazarika D., Majumder, N., et al.: Meld: A multimodal multi-party dataset for emotion recognition in conversations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.02508 (2018)

2018 arXiv
[23]

In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 4190–4200 (2020)

Li, J., Ji, D., Li, F., et al.: Hitrans: A transformer-based context-and speaker- sensitive model for emotion detection in conversations. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 4190–4200 (2020)

2020
[24]

In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 13789–13797 (2021)

Shen, W., Chen, J., Quan, X., et al.: Dialogxl: All-in-one xlnet for multi-party conversation emotion recognition. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 13789–13797 (2021)

2021
[25]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.02455 (2022)

Joshi, A., Bhat, A., Jain, A., et al.: Cogmen: Contextualized gnn based multimodal emotion recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.02455 (2022)

2022 arXiv
[26]

Neural Computing and Applica- tions, pages 1–14 (2023)

Zhang, T., Tan, Z., Wu, X.: Haan-erc: hierarchical adaptive attention network for multimodal emotion recognition in conversation. Neural Computing and Applica- tions, pages 1–14 (2023)

2023
[27]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.11256 (2022)

Hu, G., Lin, T., Zhao, Y., et al.: Unimse: Towards unified multimodal sentiment analysis and emotion recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.11256 (2022)

2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Pattern recognition, 44(3):572–587 (2011)

Ayadi, M.E., Kamel, M.S., and Karray., F.: Survey on speech emotion recognition: Features, classification schemes, and databases. Pattern recognition, 44(3):572–587 (2011)

work page 2011

[2] [2]

In 2021 7th International Conference on Computer and Communications (ICCC), pages 514–518 (2021)

Li, X., Lin, R.: Speech emotion recognition for power customer service. In 2021 7th International Conference on Computer and Communications (ICCC), pages 514–518 (2021)

work page 2021

[3] [3]

In Third international conference on natural computation (ICNC 2007), volume 5, pages 809–813 (2007)

Li, W., Zhang, Y., Fu, Y.: Speech emotion recognition in e-learning system based on affective computing. In Third international conference on natural computation (ICNC 2007), volume 5, pages 809–813 (2007)

work page 2007

[4] [4]

In 2022 IEEE 8th World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT), pages 1–6 (2022)

Elsayed, E., ElSayed, Z, Asadizanjani, N., et al.: Speech emotion recognition using supervised deep recurrent system for mental health monitoring. In 2022 IEEE 8th World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT), pages 1–6 (2022)

work page 2022

[5] [5]

In Applied Information Processing Systems: Proceedings of ICCET 2021, pages 83–92

Ahire, V., Borse, S.: Emotion detection from social media using machine learning techniques: a survey. In Applied Information Processing Systems: Proceedings of ICCET 2021, pages 83–92. Springer (2022)

work page 2022

[6] [6]

In 2017 seventh international conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction Workshops and Demos (ACIIW), pages 79–80 (2017)

Calefato, F., Lanubile, F., Novielli, N.: Emotxt: a toolkit for emotion recognition from text. In 2017 seventh international conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction Workshops and Demos (ACIIW), pages 79–80 (2017)

work page 2017

[7] [7]

In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 30 (2016)

You, Q., Luo, J., Jin, H., et al.: Building a large scale dataset for image emo- tion recognition: The fine print and the benchmark. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 30 (2016)

work page 2016

[8] [8]

Multimodal emotion recognitionusingdeeplearning

Abdullah, S.S, Ameen, S.A., Sadeeq, A.: and Subhi Zeebaree. Multimodal emotion recognitionusingdeeplearning. JournalofAppliedScienceandTechnologyTrends, 2(02):52–58 (2021)

work page 2021