Explainable Lightweight Compact Deep Models for Speech Emotion Recognition

Nelly Elsayed

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Explainable Lightweight Compact Deep Models for Speech Emotion Recognition

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a 33,208-parameter compact CNN with attentive statistics pooling and Grad-CAM achieves 96.875% accuracy on speaker-independent speech emotion recognition on the SAVEE dataset.

desk verdict The 96.875% SAVEE accuracy is arithmetically impossible with a 120-utterance test set, so the paper's central claim is unsupported as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.16803 v1 pith:T4MO5FYK submitted 2026-07-18 cs.SD cs.AIcs.ETcs.LG

Nelly Elsayed This is my paper

classification cs.SDcs.AIcs.ETcs.LG

keywords speechemotionrecognitionlightweightCNNattentivestatisticspoolingGrad-CAMexplainableAIlog-MelspectrogramSAVEEedgedeployment

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 sets out to show that a deliberately small convolutional network can recognize emotion in speech with accuracy competitive with much larger models while remaining cheap to deploy. Its pipeline runs on log-Mel spectrograms, uses attentive statistics pooling to emphasize emotionally meaningful time frames, and adds Grad-CAM heatmaps so that each prediction can be traced to specific time-frequency regions. On the SAVEE corpus under a speaker-independent split, it reports 96.875% accuracy, 0.977 unweighted average recall, and 0.962 Cohen's Kappa from just 33,208 trainable parameters. The point of the work is practical: if the claim holds, interpretable speech emotion recognition does not require heavyweight architectures, and edge devices can run it in real time.

What carries the argument

Attentive statistics pooling (ASP) is the load-bearing mechanism: after the convolutional feature maps are averaged over frequency, a learned attention layer assigns a normalized weight to each time frame, and the utterance embedding is the concatenation of the attention-weighted mean and standard deviation of the frame vectors. It serves two roles in the argument – compressing variable-length speech into a fixed-size vector without large fully connected layers, and providing per-frame weights that can be read as a temporal importance signal. The second named mechanism, Grad-CAM, computes gradient-based channel weights for the final convolutional layer and overlays a heatmap on the input spe

What would settle it

Perform leave-one-speaker-out cross-validation across all four SAVEE speakers; if accuracy varies widely across folds, with one fold near chance and the reported fold near 97%, the claimed speaker-independent generalization is not established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a shallow three-block convolutional backbone on normalized log-Mel spectrograms, followed by attentive statistics pooling and Grad-CAM visualization, reaches 96.875% test accuracy with only 33,208 trainable parameters on a speaker-independent partitioning of SAVEE. The model concatenates an attention-weighted mean and standard deviation of frame-level embeddings into a fixed-size utterance representation, replacing global pooling and large fully connected layers. Grad-CAM, applied to the final convolutional layer, produces class-specific spectro-temporal heatmaps; the paper observes that the strongest activations fall in low-to-mid frequency bands during expressive

Load-bearing premise

The single held-out speaker used for testing is representative; with only one speaker-independent fold, the 96.875% accuracy could be an artifact of an easy test speaker.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

An effective SER system can be built with roughly 33,000 parameters, making real-time inference on mobile, wearable, and IoT-class hardware a realistic goal.
The combination of ASP attention weights and Grad-CAM heatmaps gives two complementary views of model reasoning – temporal emphasis and spectro-temporal localization – without modifying the architecture.
The reported accuracy, UAR, and Kappa values indicate balanced recognition across the seven SAVEE emotions on held-out speakers, not just high average accuracy.
A standard log-Mel pipeline with a plain CNN backbone means the framework does not depend on pretrained networks or task-specific features, easing reproduction and fine-tuning.
Training is fast (roughly 2 seconds per epoch), so the model can be retrained or adapted to new conditions without a large compute budget.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves untested whether the single held-out speaker is representative; leave-one-speaker-out cross-validation across all four SAVEE speakers would give a stronger estimate of speaker-independent performance.
The parameter counts for comparison models in Table III are the paper's own approximate estimates, so the 'much smaller' claim is only as strong as those estimates; exact counts would require inspecting each cited architecture.
A natural extension is to run the same 33k-parameter architecture on larger, naturally collected emotion corpora with more speakers and less acted delivery; if accuracy drops sharply there, the SAVEE result may reflect the dataset's small size and clear articulation.
The authors stop at qualitative Grad-CAM inspection; a testable extension would correlate emphasis regions with external acoustic landmarks, such as pitch peaks or intensity onsets, to verify the highlighted time-frequency areas are genuinely emotion-bearing.

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

Colleague,

The paper's headline result doesn't survive contact with its own methods section. It reports 96.875% accuracy (and 0.96875 F1, 0.03125 Hamming loss) on SAVEE, but Section IV-A says the test set is the 120 utterances of one held-out speaker. 96.875% equals 31/32, not any k/120. The matching 1/32 fractions in F1 and Hamming loss make this look like a 32-example test set, not the described 120-example one. That's a load-bearing inconsistency for a paper whose entire claim is "96–97% at 33k parameters." No code or per-speaker breakdown is provided to resolve it.

What's genuinely decent here: the paper is clearly written, the modular pipeline (log-Mel -> compact CNN -> attentive statistics pooling -> Grad-CAM) is sensible, and the authors are upfront that they are not proposing a new architecture. The attention-weight visualizations and the observation that the model ignores zero-padded frames are nice touches. If the numbers were verified, a 33k-parameter SER model with that accuracy on a speaker-independent SAVEE split would be a useful engineering data point.

The other issues are secondary but real. There's no cross-validation or repeated seeds — just a single speaker held out, per Section IV-A. Table III compares against approximate, protocol-mismatched literature numbers, which the authors themselves caution. The explainability claims are qualitative; the Grad-CAM overlays are plausible but not benchmarked. The self-citations (refs 2, 6, 11, 22) are not by themselves a problem, though they lean on the author's own prior work.

Who gets value from this? Someone looking for a compact SER architecture template might skim the methodology, but the current numbers are not trustworthy. I wouldn't cite it, and I wouldn't bring it to a reading group except as an example of why reviewers should check whether reported metrics are arithmetically compatible with the dataset size. My recommendation: don't send it to peer review in this state. The author needs to either explain the 32-sample denominator or re-run the evaluation and report proper speaker-independent cross-validation. As written, the central quantitative claim is internally inconsistent, and the paper can't be evaluated fairly until that's fixed.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a compact CNN framework for speech emotion recognition (SER) on the SAVEE dataset, combining log-Mel spectrogram inputs, three lightweight convolutional blocks, attentive statistics pooling (ASP), and post-hoc Grad-CAM visualization. The main quantitative claims are 96.875% accuracy, 0.977 UAR, 0.962 Kappa, and 33,208 trainable parameters under a speaker-independent split (three speakers train/validation, one speaker test). The paper also presents qualitative Grad-CAM and attention analyses aimed at showing that the model focuses on emotionally salient spectro-temporal regions.

Significance. If the quantitative results were valid, a 33k-parameter model achieving near-perfect speaker-independent emotion recognition on SAVEE would be practically significant for edge and mobile deployment, and the combination of ASP-based temporal attention with Grad-CAM is a reasonable design choice for transparency. However, the reported metrics are internally inconsistent with the described test set, the evaluation rests on a single fold, and the architecture is not specified at the level needed to reproduce the parameter count. The qualitative explainability analysis is illustrative but not validated against any quantitative faithfulness metric. The significance of the work is therefore contingent on a corrected, more rigorous evaluation.

major comments (5)

[§IV-A / §IV-C, Table II] The reported test metrics are arithmetically incompatible with the described SAVEE evaluation. Section IV-A states that one speaker (120 utterances) is held out for testing. With 120 test examples, accuracy must be a multiple of 1/120, but Table II reports 96.875% = 31/32, and Hamming Loss, F1, TPR, and FNR also correspond to denominators of 32 (e.g., 0.03125, 0.96875, 0.0313). The 95% CI (0.93, 1.00) is consistent with a 32-sample binomial test, not 120 samples. This internal inconsistency suggests the test set was not the full held-out speaker, or the metrics were computed over a different subset. Because the paper's central claim is the 96–97% speaker-independent accuracy at 33k parameters, these exact counts must be reconciled: provide the per-utterance predictions, confusion matrix counts, or an explicit statement of the exact test sample size, and rerun the evaluation on the comple
[§IV-A / §IV-C] The evaluation uses a single speaker-independent train/validation/test split with no cross-validation, repeated seeds, or per-speaker breakdown. Only one held-out speaker is reported. If that speaker is acoustically favorable, the 96.875% accuracy would not reflect general speaker-independent generalization. The authors should report leave-one-speaker-out cross-validation results (or at least per-speaker results for all four speakers) with the mean and standard deviation across folds/seeds. This is especially important because SAVEE has only four speakers and the variance across speakers is known to be large.
[§III-B / §IV-B] The architecture description is too underspecified to reproduce the claimed 33,208 parameter count. The text refers to 'a convolutional stem layer' and 'three lightweight convolutional blocks' but does not specify kernel sizes, number of channels per layer, stride, padding, pooling locations, dropout rates, the dimension of the projected embedding used for ASP, or the final classifier layer. The description 'feature maps are first averaged along the frequency axis' is vague. A layer-by-layer table with output tensor shapes and parameter counts should be added so that the 33,208 number can be verified and the model can be reimplemented.
[Table III / §IV-C] The comparison with prior SAVEE results is not controlled. The table lists approximate parameter ranges ('~0.5–2 M', '~3–15 M', etc.) derived from model descriptions, and the cited works use different feature representations, train/test splits, and possibly different speaker-independent protocols. The statement that the proposed model is 'competitive or superior' is therefore not supported by a fair comparison. The authors should either reimplement representative baselines under the same split and input features, or clearly restrict the claim to 'indicative comparison' and avoid asserting superiority based on rough parameter estimates.
[§IV-D] The explainability analysis (Figures 5–8) is purely qualitative. The claim that 'the alignment between Grad-CAM activations and acoustic speech structure indicates that the model focuses on meaningful emotional cues rather than spurious patterns' is not backed by any quantitative evaluation, such as a faithfulness metric, a sanity check (e.g., randomization of model weights), or a comparison against a non-informative baseline. Since explainability is a stated contribution, the authors should provide at least a basic quantitative assessment, or temper the interpretability claims accordingly.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract / §I] There are typographical errors, e.g., 'human-omputer interaction' in the abstract and inconsistent spacing in 'SA VEE' (sometimes 'SA VEE', sometimes 'SAVEE').
[§IV-B / Table I] The paper says training is run for 'up to 160 epochs' and reports average time per epoch, but does not state how early stopping or model selection was performed (e.g., best validation epoch). Clarify the selection criterion.
[Figure 3] The confusion matrix is shown without numeric counts or normalization details. Please report the raw confusion matrix (or at least give exact per-class recall/precision) so the reader can assess class-level behavior and reconcile with the Hamming loss and F1 values.
[§III-D] The citation to [21] for Grad-CAM is correct, but Section II-C also cites [20], [21] as prior Grad-CAM applications in SER. Please make the distinction between the original Grad-CAM method and prior SER-specific applications clearer.
[Table III] For the row 'Ahmed et al. [32]', the accuracy is listed as '~76' with no exact value; if the original paper reports a number, please provide it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the reported accuracy is a measured evaluation outcome, not a fitted constant or a self-citation-forced conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a compact CNN with attentive statistics pooling and Grad-CAM reaches 96.875% accuracy and 33,208 parameters on a speaker-independent SAVEE split. This is an experimental measurement, not a quantity derived from an equation that already contains the result. Section III derives only standard definitions: STFT, log-Mel features, attention-weighted mean/standard deviation, and Grad-CAM. None of these definitions presuppose the reported accuracy or UAR; the model is trained and then evaluated on a held-out speaker. The self-citations (refs. 2, 6, 11, 22) appear in related-work or motivation contexts and are not load-bearing for the quantitative claim; no uniqueness theorem or banned alternative is imported from prior Elsayed work. The Grad-CAM method itself is cited to the external Selvaraju et al. paper. There is no fitted input renamed as a prediction, no ansatz smuggled in via self-citation, and no known result merely renamed. One serious issue is noted but it is not circularity: Section IV-A states SAVEE has 120 utterances per speaker and one speaker is held out, so the test set has 120 examples, yet Table II reports Accuracy=96.875%, Hamming Loss=0.03125, and F1=0.96875, which are exactly 31/32 values and arithmetically impossible for a denominator of 120. This internal inconsistency undermines the quantitative claim but is an evaluation/reporting error, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs. Because no circular step can be quoted and exhibited, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes no new entities or theory; its central claim rests on a standard ML pipeline. The free parameters are conventional hyperparameters, but the absence of ablations or sensitivity analysis means the reader cannot tell which choices drive the high accuracy. The most consequential assumptions are evaluation-based (one speaker fold) and representation-based (log-Mel sufficiency).

free parameters (8)

Learning rate = 2×10^-3
Hand-chosen Adam hyperparameter; no sensitivity analysis or schedule reported (Section IV-B).
Weight decay = 10^-3
Hand-chosen regularization; no sensitivity analysis.
Batch size = 32
Hand-chosen; no sensitivity analysis.
Epoch count = 160
Training length; early stopping not specified.
Mel filter count = 64
Feature extraction dimension chosen a priori; no ablation.
FFT size / hop = 400 / 160 samples (25 ms / 10 ms)
STFT parameters; no ablation.
Max utterance duration = 4 seconds
Fixed input length via padding/truncation; padding is assumed uninformative.
Convolutional blocks = 3
Architecture depth chosen by hand; channel counts, kernels, dropout not reported.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption SAVEE emotion labels are correct ground truth
All metrics treat SAVEE annotations as reliable labels; acted emotions may not transfer to real-world speech.
domain assumption Speaker-independent split with three training speakers and one test speaker prevents speaker leakage
Section IV-A assumes no speaker identity cues leak; only one fold is used, so this assumption is not stress-tested.
domain assumption Log-Mel spectrograms preserve emotion-discriminative information
The whole pipeline assumes this representation is sufficient; no comparison to raw waveform or other features.
domain assumption Grad-CAM highlights decision-relevant time-frequency regions
Taken from prior work [21]; the paper provides only qualitative confirmation.
domain assumption ASP attention weights correspond to emotionally salient temporal segments
Section IV-D interprets attention peaks as emotional salience without quantitative validation.
ad hoc to paper Zero-padded frames are correctly ignored by the model
Inferred from a single surprise-class example (Figure 5), not established generally.
domain assumption Per-utterance normalization removes speaker/recording variability without removing emotion cues
Stated in Section III-A; no ablation or analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Explainable Lightweight Compact Deep Models for Speech Emotion Recognition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T4MO5FYK

@misc{pith2026260716803,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Explainable Lightweight Compact Deep Models for Speech Emotion Recognition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T4MO5FYK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.16803}
}

read the original abstract

Speech Emotion Recognition (SER) is an important component in a wide range of human-centered applications, including healthcare, customer service, and human-omputer interaction. In medical and decision-support settings, there is increasing interest in models that not only achieve accurate emotion recognition but also support transparent predictions and efficient deployment. However, many existing SER approaches rely on complex deep learning architectures that limit interpretability and increase computational cost. This paper presents an explainable and lightweight speech emotion recognition framework based on a compact convolutional neural network architecture. The proposed approach utilizes log-Mel spectrogram representations to capture spectro-temporal speech characteristics and employs attentive statistics pooling to emphasize emotionally salient temporal segments. To improve model transparency, gradient-based class activation mapping (Grad-CAM) is incorporated to visualize the time-frequency regions that influence the model's predictions. Experimental evaluation on the SAVEE emotional speech dataset demonstrates that the proposed framework achieves competitive recognition performance while maintaining a compact architecture with significantly fewer parameters than many existing SER models. The results indicate that efficient convolutional architectures combined with interpretable analysis can provide a practical balance between recognition accuracy, computational efficiency, and model transparency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16803 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The proposed explainable and lightweight SER framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The proposed explainable and lightweight SER confusion matrix over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The proposed SER model train versus validation accuracy, loss, and UAR diagrams. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Top-K time frames selected according to the highest ASP attention [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Temporal attention weights produced by the attentive statistics pooling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

[1]

Speech emotion recognition in mental health: Systematic review of voice-based applications,

E. Jordan, R. Terrisse, V . Lucarini, M. Alrahabi, M.-O. Krebs, J. Descl´es, and C. Lemey, “Speech emotion recognition in mental health: Systematic review of voice-based applications,”JMIR mental health, vol. 12, no. 1, p. e74260, 2025

2025
[2]

Speech emotion recognition using supervised deep recurrent system for mental health monitoring,

N. Elsayed, Z. ElSayed, N. Asadizanjani, M. Ozer, A. Abdelgawad, and M. Bayoumi, “Speech emotion recognition using supervised deep recurrent system for mental health monitoring,” in2022 IEEE 8th World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT), pp. 1–6, IEEE, 2022

2022
[3]

Speech databases, speech features, and classifiers in speech emotion recognition: A review,

G. M. Dar and R. Delhibabu, “Speech databases, speech features, and classifiers in speech emotion recognition: A review,”IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 151122–151152, 2024

2024
[4]

Survey of deep representation learning for speech emotion recognition,

S. Latif, R. Rana, S. Khalifa, R. Jurdak, J. Qadir, and B. Schuller, “Survey of deep representation learning for speech emotion recognition,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 1634– 1654, 2021

2021
[5]

Convolution neural network based automatic speech emotion recognition using mel-frequency cepstrum coefficients,

M. D. Pawar and R. D. Kokate, “Convolution neural network based automatic speech emotion recognition using mel-frequency cepstrum coefficients,”Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 80, no. 10, pp. 15563–15587, 2021

2021
[6]

Empirical evaluation of deep recurrent deep neural net- works models for speech emotion recognition for real time applications,

N. Elsayed, C. L. Zekios, Z. ElSayed, E. V . Pedapati, and S. Geor- gakopoulos, “Empirical evaluation of deep recurrent deep neural net- works models for speech emotion recognition for real time applications,” inInternational Conference on Intelligent Systems, Blockchain, and Communication Technologies, pp. 255–264, Springer, 2025

2025
[7]

Vesper: A compact and effective pretrained model for speech emotion recognition,

W. Chen, X. Xing, P. Chen, and X. Xu, “Vesper: A compact and effective pretrained model for speech emotion recognition,”IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1711–1724, 2024

2024
[8]

Benchmarking pretrained models for speech emotion recognition: A focus on Xception,

A. Hassan, T. Masood, H. A. Ahmed, H. Shahzad, and H. M. Tayyab Khushi, “Benchmarking pretrained models for speech emotion recognition: A focus on Xception,”Computers, vol. 13, no. 12, p. 315, 2024

2024

Show all 34 references

[9]

Pre- trained deep convolution neural network model with attention for speech emotion recognition,

H. Zhang, R. Gou, J. Shang, F. Shen, Y . Wu, and G. Dai, “Pre- trained deep convolution neural network model with attention for speech emotion recognition,”Frontiers in Physiology, vol. 12, p. 643202, 2021

2021
[10]

Tc-net: A modest & lightweight emotion recognition system using temporal convolution network.,

M. Ishaq, M. Khan,et al., “Tc-net: A modest & lightweight emotion recognition system using temporal convolution network.,”Computer Systems Science & Engineering, vol. 46, no. 3, 2023

2023
[11]

LiteLSTM architecture based on weights sharing for recurrent neural networks,

N. Elsayed, Z. ElSayed, and A. S. Maida, “LiteLSTM architecture based on weights sharing for recurrent neural networks,”International Journal of Computers and Applications, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 509–517, 2025

2025
[12]

Cnn+ lstm architecture for speech emotion recognition with data augmentation,

C. Etienne, G. Fidanza, A. Petrovskii, L. Devillers, and B. Schmauch, “Cnn+ lstm architecture for speech emotion recognition with data augmentation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.05630, 2018

2018 arXiv
[13]

Speech emotion recognition using deep 1D & 2D CNN LSTM networks,

J. Zhao, X. Mao, and L. Chen, “Speech emotion recognition using deep 1D & 2D CNN LSTM networks,”Biomedical signal processing and control, vol. 47, pp. 312–323, 2019

2019
[14]

Robust speech emotion recog- nition using cnn+ lstm based on stochastic fractal search optimization algorithm,

A. A. Abdelhamid, E.-S. M. El-Kenawy, B. Alotaibi, G. M. Amer, M. Y . Abdelkader, A. Ibrahim, and M. M. Eid, “Robust speech emotion recog- nition using cnn+ lstm based on stochastic fractal search optimization algorithm,”Ieee Access, vol. 10, pp. 49265–49284, 2022

2022
[15]

Speech emotion recognition using deep convolutional neural network and discriminant temporal pyramid matching,

S. Zhang, S. Zhang, T. Huang, and W. Gao, “Speech emotion recognition using deep convolutional neural network and discriminant temporal pyramid matching,”IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 1576–1590, 2018

2018
[16]

Speech emotion recognition: Two decades in a nutshell, benchmarks, and ongoing trends,

B. W. Schuller, “Speech emotion recognition: Two decades in a nutshell, benchmarks, and ongoing trends,”Communications of the ACM, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 90–99, 2018

2018
[17]

Lightweight deep learning framework for speech emotion recognition,

S. Akinpelu, S. Viriri, and A. Adegun, “Lightweight deep learning framework for speech emotion recognition,”IEEE access, vol. 11, pp. 77086–77098, 2023

2023
[18]

Speech emotion recognition on mobile devices based on modulation spectral feature pooling and deep neural networks,

A. R. Avila, J. Monteiro, D. O’Shaughneussy, and T. H. Falk, “Speech emotion recognition on mobile devices based on modulation spectral feature pooling and deep neural networks,” in2017 IEEE International Symposium on Signal Processing and Information Technology (ISSPIT), pp. ...

2017
[19]

A systematic re- view of interpretability and explainability for speech emotion features in automatic speech emotion recognition,

H. M. Jayasinghe, K. W. Wong, and A. Nugaliyadde, “A systematic re- view of interpretability and explainability for speech emotion features in automatic speech emotion recognition,”Pattern recognition, p. 112122, 2025

2025
[20]

From large- scale audio tagging to real-time explainable emergency vehicle sirens detection,

S. Giacomelli, M. Giordano, C. Rinaldi, and F. Graziosi, “From large- scale audio tagging to real-time explainable emergency vehicle sirens detection,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.23437, 2025

2025 arXiv
[21]

Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization,

R. R. Selvaraju, M. Cogswell, A. Das, R. Vedantam, D. Parikh, and D. Batra, “Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization,” inProceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pp. 618–626, 2017

2017
[22]

Socio-technical risks of clinical speech-to-text systems: Transparency, privacy, and reliability challenges in ai-driven documen- tation,

N. Elsayed, “Socio-technical risks of clinical speech-to-text systems: Transparency, privacy, and reliability challenges in ai-driven documen- tation,”International Journal of Medical Informatics, p. 106419, 2026

2026
[23]

Fusion of log-mel spectrogram and acoustic features for driver speech emotion recognition,

L. Lu, C. Liu, D. Li, X. Liu, Y . Li, L. Cheng, and X. Zheng, “Fusion of log-mel spectrogram and acoustic features for driver speech emotion recognition,”Expert Systems with Applications, p. 131021, 2025

2025
[24]

Combining frame and turn-level information for robust recognition of emotions within speech,

B. Vlasenko, B. Schuller, A. Wendemuth, and G. Rigoll, “Combining frame and turn-level information for robust recognition of emotions within speech,” inProceedings of Interspeech, pp. 2249–2252, 2007

2007
[25]

Audio-visual feature selection and reduction for emotion classification,

S. Haq, P. J. Jackson, and J. Edge, “Audio-visual feature selection and reduction for emotion classification,” inProc. Int. Conf. on Auditory- Visual Speech Processing (AVSP’08), Tangalooma, Australia, 2008

2008
[26]

Speech emotion recognition using convolutional neural networks with attention mecha- nism,

K. Mountzouris, I. Perikos, and I. Hatzilygeroudis, “Speech emotion recognition using convolutional neural networks with attention mecha- nism,”Electronics, vol. 12, no. 20, p. 4376, 2023

2023
[27]

Speech emotion recognition based on adaptive feature fusion network,

X. Tong and X. Ye, “Speech emotion recognition based on adaptive feature fusion network,” in2024 4th International Conference on Elec- tronic Information Engineering and Computer Communication (EIECC), pp. 653–656, 2024

2024
[28]

Speech emotion recognition through hybrid features and convolutional neural network,

A. Aliet al., “Speech emotion recognition through hybrid features and convolutional neural network,”Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 8, p. 4750, 2023

2023
[29]

Speech emotion recognition and classification using hybrid deep cnn and bilstm model,

S. Mishra, N. Bhatnagar, P. Prakasam, and T. R. Sureshkumar, “Speech emotion recognition and classification using hybrid deep cnn and bilstm model,”Multimedia Tools and Applications, 2024

2024
[30]

Recognition of emotion behind speech using deep learning RESNET algorithm,

J. V . Pinnamaraju, A. V . D. N. Murthy, G. A. V . R. C. Rao, B. Pradeep, and B. Niharika, “Recognition of emotion behind speech using deep learning RESNET algorithm,” inIntelligent Computing Systems and Applications(B. Kannan, S. Smys, R. Bestak, and Z. Baig, eds.), Cham: Spr...

2024
[31]

A deep learning approach for speech emotion recognition optimization using meta-learning,

L. T. C. Ottoni, A. L. C. Ottoni, and J. d. J. F. Cerqueira, “A deep learning approach for speech emotion recognition optimization using meta-learning,”Electronics, vol. 12, no. 23, p. 4859, 2023

2023
[32]

Speech emotion recognition using deep learning,

W. Ahmed, S. Riaz, K. Iftikhar, and S. Konur, “Speech emotion recognition using deep learning,” inArtificial Intelligence XL: 43rd SGAI International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AI 2023, Cam- bridge, UK, December 12–14, 2023, Proceedings, (Berlin, Heidelberg), p. 19...

2023
[33]

Speech emotion recognition using machine learning: A comparative analysis,

S. Nath, A. K. Shahi, T. Martin, N. Choudhury, and R. Mandal, “Speech emotion recognition using machine learning: A comparative analysis,” SN Computer Science, vol. 5, p. 390, 2024

2024
[34]

Speech emotion detection based on MFCC and CNN- LSTM architecture,

Q. Ouyang, “Speech emotion detection based on MFCC and CNN- LSTM architecture,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.10666, 2025

2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Speech emotion recognition in mental health: Systematic review of voice-based applications,

E. Jordan, R. Terrisse, V . Lucarini, M. Alrahabi, M.-O. Krebs, J. Descl´es, and C. Lemey, “Speech emotion recognition in mental health: Systematic review of voice-based applications,”JMIR mental health, vol. 12, no. 1, p. e74260, 2025

2025

[2] [2]

Speech emotion recognition using supervised deep recurrent system for mental health monitoring,

N. Elsayed, Z. ElSayed, N. Asadizanjani, M. Ozer, A. Abdelgawad, and M. Bayoumi, “Speech emotion recognition using supervised deep recurrent system for mental health monitoring,” in2022 IEEE 8th World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT), pp. 1–6, IEEE, 2022

2022

[3] [3]

Speech databases, speech features, and classifiers in speech emotion recognition: A review,

G. M. Dar and R. Delhibabu, “Speech databases, speech features, and classifiers in speech emotion recognition: A review,”IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 151122–151152, 2024

2024

[4] [4]

Survey of deep representation learning for speech emotion recognition,

S. Latif, R. Rana, S. Khalifa, R. Jurdak, J. Qadir, and B. Schuller, “Survey of deep representation learning for speech emotion recognition,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 1634– 1654, 2021

2021

[5] [5]

Convolution neural network based automatic speech emotion recognition using mel-frequency cepstrum coefficients,

M. D. Pawar and R. D. Kokate, “Convolution neural network based automatic speech emotion recognition using mel-frequency cepstrum coefficients,”Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 80, no. 10, pp. 15563–15587, 2021

2021

[6] [6]

Empirical evaluation of deep recurrent deep neural net- works models for speech emotion recognition for real time applications,

N. Elsayed, C. L. Zekios, Z. ElSayed, E. V . Pedapati, and S. Geor- gakopoulos, “Empirical evaluation of deep recurrent deep neural net- works models for speech emotion recognition for real time applications,” inInternational Conference on Intelligent Systems, Blockchain, and Communication Technologies, pp. 255–264, Springer, 2025

2025

[7] [7]

Vesper: A compact and effective pretrained model for speech emotion recognition,

W. Chen, X. Xing, P. Chen, and X. Xu, “Vesper: A compact and effective pretrained model for speech emotion recognition,”IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1711–1724, 2024

2024

[8] [8]

Benchmarking pretrained models for speech emotion recognition: A focus on Xception,

A. Hassan, T. Masood, H. A. Ahmed, H. Shahzad, and H. M. Tayyab Khushi, “Benchmarking pretrained models for speech emotion recognition: A focus on Xception,”Computers, vol. 13, no. 12, p. 315, 2024

2024