DeepEmoNet: Building Machine Learning Models for Automatic Emotion Recognition in Human Speeches

Tai Vu

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 25 references

DeepEmoNet: Building Machine Learning Models for Automatic Emotion Recognition in Human Speeches

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An ImageNet-pretrained ResNet34 fine-tuned on log-mel spectrograms with image-style augmentation recognizes acted speech emotions at 66.7% accuracy (F1 0.631), outperforming SVM, LSTM, and from-scratch CNN baselines on the pooled RAVDESS/SA

desk verdict A small, honest ablation showing transfer learning plus image-style augmentation helps on pooled RAVDESS/SAVEE, but the 66.7% headline is read off a leaky random clip-level validation split. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.00025 v1 pith:C7A35AL5 submitted 2025-08-20 eess.AS cs.AIcs.LG

Tai Vu This is my paper

classification eess.AScs.AIcs.LG

keywords speechemotionrecognitiontransferlearningdataaugmentationResNet34melspectrogramsRAVDESSSAVEEaudioclassification

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 emotion recognition from speech can be made to work with a small amount of labeled audio by borrowing computer-vision tools. The author encodes each utterance as a log-scaled mel spectrogram—a two-dimensional time–frequency array that looks like an image—and trains SVMs, LSTMs, and CNNs on a pool of the RAVDESS and SAVEE acted-speech databases. The best system is a ResNet34 pretrained on ImageNet and fine-tuned on those spectrograms, with image-style augmentation (rotation, zoom, brightness changes, progressive resizing, and Mixup) applied during training. It reaches 66.7% validation accuracy and an F1 score of 0.631, clearly above the SVM (51.7%), LSTM (52.8%), and from-scratch CNN (45.8%) baselines. The paper's argument is that transfer learning and data augmentation are what make deep audio-only emotion classification viable on a small dataset.

What carries the argument

The central object is the log-scaled mel spectrogram, a 2D time–frequency image representation of each utterance. Feeding that array into a ResNet34 pretrained on ImageNet converts speech emotion recognition into image classification, letting the residual network's learned feature hierarchy read spectrogram textures. The supporting mechanisms are image-style augmentation (small rotations, zoom, brightness changes), progressive resizing from 128×128 to 256×256 spectrograms, and Mixup, which together regularize the fine-tune and are credited with the accuracy jump from 57.3% to 66.7%.

What would settle it

Run the same ResNet34 training pipeline with a speaker-disjoint split—hold out whole actors and evaluate only on them—and compare the resulting accuracy and F1 against the reported 66.7%/0.631; a large drop would show the clip-level split, not the emotion signal, carried the original result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the discovery is that a generic image classifier can be converted into a speech-emotion classifier by feeding it log-mel spectrograms. The paper reports that fine-tuning an ImageNet-pretrained ResNet34 on a pooled RAVDESS/SAVEE training set yields 66.7% accuracy and 0.631 F1 on the validation set, compared with 57.3% for the same model without data augmentation and 45.8% for a ResNet34 trained from scratch. The loss curves show that augmentation shrinks the gap between training and validation loss, which the author reads as evidence that the method controls overfitting rather than merely adding computation. Confusion is concentrated between neutral and calm and on the angry

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation uses a random 90/5/5 split of individual audio clips rather than splitting by speaker, so clips from the same actor can appear in both training and validation—if that leakage happens, the reported 66.7% measures voice and recording-condition memorization, not emotion recognition in new speakers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Applying ImageNet-pretrained ResNet34 to log-mel spectrograms with image-style augmentation reaches 66.7% accuracy and F1 0.631 on pooled RAVDESS/SAVEE, the best of the four architectures compared.
Transfer learning alone raises the from-scratch ResNet34 result by about 11.5 percentage points, indicating that pretrained visual features carry over to spectrogram inputs.
Adding data augmentation on top of transfer learning raises accuracy by another roughly 9.4 points and visibly narrows the train/validation loss gap, showing overfitting can be restrained without collecting more audio.
The audio-only design works without video or text features, which the paper argues is important for applications where only sound is available.
The best model still sits below 70% accuracy and confuses neutral with calm and underperforms on angry and disgust, so larger, more diverse corpora are the paper's stated next step.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: because the 90/5/5 split is done on individual clips rather than held-out speakers, the reported 66.7% likely overstates how well the model would recognize a new actor's voice; a speaker-disjoint split would be a stricter and probably lower estimate.
Editorial inference: the augmentations that helped are image-level transformations, not audio-level ones like pitch shift or speed change, so the gain may be partly generic regularization; comparing with audio-domain augmentation (e.g., SpecAugment) on the same backbone would separate those effects.
Editorial inference: the confusion pattern—neutral/calm and angry/disgust—suggests the classifier may be picking up acted prosody or recording-session characteristics rather than robust emotional cues; evaluating on naturally elicited or cross-corpus emotions would probe what the model actually learned.
Editorial inference: since any pretrained CNN could in principle be swapped into the same spectrogram pipeline, the result does not by itself show ResNet34 is special; a comparison across pretrained architectures or with self-supervised audio pretraining would isolate whether the boost comes from the architecture or from transfer learning in general.

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

Quick take: this is a competent, small-scale empirical paper, not a methods breakthrough. Its one substantive claim is that fine-tuning an ImageNet-pretrained ResNet34 on log-mel spectrograms, plus image-based augmentation, progressive resizing, and Mixup, reaches 66.7% validation accuracy on pooled RAVDESS/SAVEE. The direction of that claim is plausible, and the ablation ordering is internally consistent. But the headline number is not a trustworthy generalization estimate, and the paper doesn't give us an independent test-set number at all.

What the paper does well: it is unusually clear about what was tried. The progression — SVM, LSTM, ResNet from scratch, fine-tuned ResNet, fine-tuned ResNet with augmentation — is a sensible ladder, and the loss curves in Figure 3 support the overfitting story. Applying image augmentation to mel spectrograms is a reasonable thing to test, and the paper tests it directly rather than just asserting it works. The limitations paragraph is honest about the dataset's narrow content.

The soft spots are real and they matter. Section 5.1 says the split is a random 90/5/5 at the clip level, with no speaker partitioning. RAVDESS has 24 actors and SAVEE has 4; each actor recorded the same short sentences in one environment. With a 5% validation slice, the same speaker almost surely appears in both training and validation, so the model can exploit speaker-specific recording artifacts. That leaks information and likely inflates all of Table 1, not just the best row. The paper then reports the validation accuracy of the best model as the final claim, with no held-out test set and no confidence intervals. The internal comparison between models still carries weight, since the same leaky protocol applies to all rows, but the absolute 66.7% should not be cited as a clean result.

One minor but annoying issue: the code link is missing. The text says 'All the code can be found here,' but there is no URL. That undercuts reproducibility, and it is easy to fix.

The stress-test note is on target. I don't think the work is sloppy in its reasoning — the loss curves and ablations are coherent — just that the evaluation protocol is too weak to support the headline. This is fixable: a speaker-independent split and a real test set would turn this into a solid workshop-level paper.

Who should read it: practitioners who want a quick, honest sanity check that transfer learning and augmentation help on small SER datasets. It is not new enough or rigorous enough to change the field. I would send it to review, not desk-reject it, because the empirical question is legitimate and the required revisions are straightforward.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper addresses speech emotion recognition (SER) by comparing several models on a pooled RAVDESS and SAVEE dataset: an SVM on averaged MFCCs, a bidirectional LSTM on log-mel spectrograms, and a ResNet34 CNN on log-mel spectrogram images, with and without ImageNet transfer learning and with data augmentation (image-based transforms, progressive resizing, and mixup). The data are split 90% training / 5% validation / 5% test at the utterance level. The best reported result is a transfer-learned ResNet34 with augmentation, achieving 66.7% accuracy and 0.631 F1 on the validation set. The paper claims that transfer learning and data augmentation improve performance and help mitigate overfitting on a small dataset.

Significance. If the evaluation protocol were unbiased, this would be a useful case study in small-corpus SER and in transferring image-domain pretraining to spectrogram representations. The manuscript has concrete strengths: it compares classical and deep models, uses publicly available datasets, reports loss curves and a confusion matrix, and explicitly attributes performance gaps to overfitting and to the similarity of emotion classes. However, the current evaluation does not support the headline claim as a statement about generalization to new speakers. The accuracy is measured on the validation set from a random utterance-level split, no speaker-independent evaluation is performed, and no test-set results are reported. These issues are correctable, but they are central to the paper's main conclusion.

major comments (4)

[Section 5.1, Table 1, Section 5.4] The 90/5/5 split is performed on individual utterances, not on speakers. RAVDESS contains 24 actors and SAVEE 4 actors, so with roughly 5% of ~1,920 clips held out, the validation set almost certainly contains clips from the same actors as the training set. Because each actor repeats the same sentences under fixed recording conditions, the model can exploit speaker- or recording-specific cues rather than emotion-general patterns. This makes the reported 66.7% validation accuracy an optimistic estimate of generalization to unseen speakers. In addition, Section 5.1 defines a separate 5% test set, but Section 5.4 never reports test-set results; the validation set is used both for model selection and for the final claim. Please re-evaluate with a speaker-independent split (e.g., leave-one-speaker-group-out or speaker-disjoint folds) and report the test-set or cross-validated accuracy and F1,
[Section 5.2 and Section 5.4, Table 1] The comparison that supports transfer learning is confounded by training budget. The from-scratch ResNet34 is trained for 200 epochs, while the transfer-learned model is fine-tuned for only 30 epochs. The accuracy increase from 45.8% to 57.3% could therefore reflect training duration or optimization schedule rather than pretraining alone. Similarly, the LSTM is trained for 200 epochs but convergence is only described for the transfer-learning case. To support the claim that ImageNet pretraining helps, please control the number of epochs/iterations or report learning curves for all models across the same training budget.
[Section 5.4 and Table 1] No uncertainty quantification is provided. Each reported number appears to come from a single run. With a validation set of only ~96 clips, differences such as SVM 51.7% vs. LSTM 52.8% are likely within sampling noise. Even the gap between 57.3% and 66.7% needs error bars or a significance test to be interpretable. Please report results over multiple random seeds or splits with confidence intervals, or run paired significance tests between models.
[Section 4] The paper states 'All the code can be found here' but no URL is provided; this is a placeholder rather than a reproducible code link. Moreover, the augmentation magnitudes (rotation angle, zoom factor, brightness range) and the exact progressive-resizing schedule are not specified, although these are central to the data-augmentation claim. Please provide the code and a precise implementation appendix, or at least list all augmentation hyperparameters.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract and Section 3.1] The term 'LTSMs' is a typo for 'LSTMs'.
[Throughout] The dataset names appear with inconsistent spacing: 'RA VDESS' and 'SA VEE' should be 'RAVDESS' and 'SAVEE'.
[Section 5.2] There is a missing space in 'learning rate of0.001'.
[Section 5.4] The confusion matrix is described only informally. It would be helpful to include class-wise precision and recall, since the claim that the model is better on 'surprised, happy, calm' and worse on 'disgust, angry' is otherwise anecdotal.
[Section 6] The sentence 'With more training data, the model will definitely be able to learn better' is an overclaim; no evidence supports certainty about future improvement.
[References] The reference for Zhang et al. (2018) is missing the venue (ICLR). Some other references also lack page numbers or full publication details.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all reported results are direct measured accuracies from a benchmark comparison, with no fitted-input-called-prediction or self-citation chain.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical benchmarking study. The central claim, that the best model was a ResNet34 network achieving 66.7% accuracy and an F1 score of 0.631, is reported directly in Table 1 as measured validation-set performance. There is no derivation chain in which an output is defined in terms of its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The transfer-learning and data-augmentation conclusions are supported by within-paper ablations (the rows of Table 1 and the loss curves in Figure 3), so they are direct experimental comparisons rather than definitional equivalences. No self-citation is load-bearing: the author does not cite their own prior work, and no uniqueness theorem or forced choice is imported from the authors. The only concerns, namely the random clip-level 90/5/5 split without speaker partitioning and the reporting of the validation set used for model selection, are validity and generalization risks rather than circularity. The paper does not claim to predict a quantity that it already used as an input; it reports measured classifier accuracy. Accordingly, no circular step meets the evidentiary standard required by the instructions.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is empirical and depends on dataset, hyperparameter, and evaluation choices rather than on a formal derivation. No new theoretical entities are introduced. The main free parameters are standard ML hyperparameters; the most consequential choices are the unspecified augmentation magnitudes and the random split, which are not fitted constants but do shape the reported result.

free parameters (9)

Learning rate = 0.001
Set by hand for all neural networks; Section 5.2. No sweep is reported.
Learning rate decay = 0.9
Chosen for Adam in Section 5.2.
Batch size = 64
Section 5.2.
Mel bands = 128
Used for log-mel spectrograms for LSTM and CNN; Section 5.2.
MFCC coefficients = 20
Used for SVM; Section 5.2.
Training epochs = 200 for LSTM and from-scratch CNN; 30 for fine-tuned ResNet34
Section 5.2.
Augmentation magnitudes = Not specified
Rotation, zoom, and brightness strengths in Section 3.2 are described qualitatively.
Mixup interpolation distribution = Not specified
Section 3.2 defines lambda in [0,1] but does not state the Beta distribution or alpha value.
Data split proportions = 90/5/5
Section 5.1.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Pooling RAVDESS and SAVEE into one 8-class emotion set is valid
Section 5.1 combines datasets with different actors, sentences, and recording conditions; class labels are assumed equivalent.
domain assumption Random utterance-level split yields a valid generalization estimate
Section 5.1 uses 90/5/5 split without speaker partitioning; repeated sentences and actors may leak into validation.
domain assumption ImageNet-pretrained features transfer to log-mel spectrograms
Section 5.4 attributes gains to transfer learning from ImageNet to spectrogram images; no direct evidence of representation similarity.
domain assumption Image-based augmentation preserves emotion labels
Section 3.2 applies rotation, zoom, brightness to spectrograms; assumes these do not distort emotion cues.
standard math The implementations of SVM, LSTM, ResNet, Adam, and loss functions are correct
Relies on external libraries (PyTorch, FastAI, scikit-learn, librosa) cited in Section 4.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DeepEmoNet: Building Machine Learning Models for Automatic Emotion Recognition in Human Speeches." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C7A35AL5

@misc{pith2026250900025,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DeepEmoNet: Building Machine Learning Models for Automatic Emotion Recognition in Human Speeches},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C7A35AL5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.00025}
}

abstract

Speech emotion recognition (SER) has been a challenging problem in spoken language processing research, because it is unclear how human emotions are connected to various components of sounds such as pitch, loudness, and energy. This paper aims to tackle this problem using machine learning. Particularly, we built several machine learning models using SVMs, LTSMs, and CNNs to classify emotions in human speeches. In addition, by leveraging transfer learning and data augmentation, we efficiently trained our models to attain decent performances on a relatively small dataset. Our best model was a ResNet34 network, which achieved an accuracy of $66.7\%$ and an F1 score of $0.631$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.00025 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Distribution of emotion labels in the dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Training and validation losses across 30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Confusion matrix for the best CNN model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The waveforms of a neutral utterance (upper) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

[1]

Bernhard E Boser, Isabelle M Guyon, and Vladimir N Vapnik. 1992. A training algorithm for optimal margin classifiers. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Workshop on Computational Learning Theory, pages 144--152

1992
[2]

Yung-Sung Chuang, Chi-Liang Liu, Hung-yi Lee, and Lin-shan Lee. 2019. Speechbert: An audio-and-text jointly learned language model for end-to-end spoken question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.11559

arXiv 2019
[3]

Federico Colangelo, Federica Battisti, and Alessandro Neri. 2021. Progressive training of convolutional neural networks for acoustic events classification. In 2020 28th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO), pages 26--30. IEEE

2021
[4]

Semiye Demircan and Humar Kahramanli. 2018. Application of fuzzy c-means clustering algorithm to spectral features for emotion classification from speech. Neural Computing and Applications, 29(8):59--66

2018
[5]

Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770--778

2016
[6]

Sepp Hochreiter and J \"u rgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural computation, 9(8):1735--1780

1997
[7]

Jeremy Howard and Sylvain Gugger. 2020. Fastai: A layered api for deep learning. Information, 11(2):108

2020
[8]

Philip Jackson and S Haq. 2014. Surrey audio-visual expressed emotion (savee) database. University of Surrey: Guildford, UK

2014

Show all 25 references

[9]

Yelin Kim, Honglak Lee, and Emily Mower Provost. 2013. Deep learning for robust feature generation in audiovisual emotion recognition. In 2013 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing, pages 3687--3691. IEEE

2013
[10]

Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980

2014 arXiv
[11]

Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio, et al. 1995. Convolutional networks for images, speech, and time series. The handbook of brain theory and neural networks, 3361(10):1995

1995
[12]

Wootaek Lim, Daeyoung Jang, and Taejin Lee. 2016. Speech emotion recognition using convolutional and recurrent neural networks. In 2016 Asia-Pacific signal and information processing association annual summit and conference (APSIPA), pages 1--4. IEEE

2016
[13]

Livingstone and Frank A

Steven R. Livingstone and Frank A. Russo. 2018. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1188976 The Ryerson Audio-Visual Database of Emotional Speech and Song (RAVDESS) . Funding Information Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada: 2012-341583 Hear the world researc...

2018 doi
[14]

Brian McFee, Colin Raffel, Dawen Liang, Daniel PW Ellis, Matt McVicar, Eric Battenberg, and Oriol Nieto. 2015. librosa: Audio and music signal analysis in python. In Proceedings of the 14th python in science conference, volume 8, pages 18--25. Citeseer

2015
[15]

Park, William Chan, Yu Zhang, Chung-Cheng Chiu, Barret Zoph, Ekin D

Daniel S. Park, William Chan, Yu Zhang, Chung-Cheng Chiu, Barret Zoph, Ekin D. Cubuk, and Quoc V. Le. 2019. https://doi.org/10.21437/interspeech.2019-2680 Specaugment: A simple data augmentation method for automatic speech recognition . Interspeech 2019

2019 doi
[16]

Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.01703

2019 arXiv
[17]

Fabian Pedregosa, Ga \"e l Varoquaux, Alexandre Gramfort, Vincent Michel, Bertrand Thirion, Olivier Grisel, Mathieu Blondel, Peter Prettenhofer, Ron Weiss, Vincent Dubourg, et al. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python. the Journal of machine Learning research, 12:2825--2830

2011
[18]

Olga Russakovsky, Jia Deng, Hao Su, Jonathan Krause, Sanjeev Satheesh, Sean Ma, Zhiheng Huang, Andrej Karpathy, Aditya Khosla, Michael Bernstein, et al. 2015. Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge. International journal of computer vision, 115(3):211--252

2015
[19]

Steffen Schneider, Alexei Baevski, Ronan Collobert, and Michael Auli. 2019. wav2vec: Unsupervised pre-training for speech recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.05862

2019 arXiv
[20]

Bj \"o rn Schuller, Gerhard Rigoll, and Manfred Lang. 2003. Hidden markov model-based speech emotion recognition. In 2003 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 2003. Proceedings.(ICASSP'03)., volume 2, pages II--1. IEEE

2003
[21]

Panagiotis Tzirakis, George Trigeorgis, Mihalis A Nicolaou, Bj \"o rn W Schuller, and Stefanos Zafeiriou. 2017. End-to-end multimodal emotion recognition using deep neural networks. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 11(8):1301--1309

2017
[22]

Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.03762

2017 arXiv
[23]

Dauphin, and David Lopez-Paz

Hongyi Zhang, Moustapha Cisse, Yann N. Dauphin, and David Lopez-Paz. 2018. http://arxiv.org/abs/1710.09412 mixup: Beyond empirical risk minimization

2018 arXiv
[24]

URL: " 'urlintro :=

ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year eprint doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before...
[25]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Bernhard E Boser, Isabelle M Guyon, and Vladimir N Vapnik. 1992. A training algorithm for optimal margin classifiers. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Workshop on Computational Learning Theory, pages 144--152

1992

[2] [2]

Yung-Sung Chuang, Chi-Liang Liu, Hung-yi Lee, and Lin-shan Lee. 2019. Speechbert: An audio-and-text jointly learned language model for end-to-end spoken question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.11559

arXiv 2019

[3] [3]

Federico Colangelo, Federica Battisti, and Alessandro Neri. 2021. Progressive training of convolutional neural networks for acoustic events classification. In 2020 28th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO), pages 26--30. IEEE

2021

[4] [4]

Semiye Demircan and Humar Kahramanli. 2018. Application of fuzzy c-means clustering algorithm to spectral features for emotion classification from speech. Neural Computing and Applications, 29(8):59--66

2018

[5] [5]

Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770--778

2016

[6] [6]

Sepp Hochreiter and J \"u rgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural computation, 9(8):1735--1780

1997

[7] [7]

Jeremy Howard and Sylvain Gugger. 2020. Fastai: A layered api for deep learning. Information, 11(2):108

2020

[8] [8]

Philip Jackson and S Haq. 2014. Surrey audio-visual expressed emotion (savee) database. University of Surrey: Guildford, UK

2014