Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 45 references

Learning More with Less: Self-Supervised Approaches for Low-Resource Speech Emotion Recognition

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding self-supervised pretraining on unlabeled low-resource speech—speaker-contrastive learning or BYOL—to a Whisper-based emotion recognizer lifts Macro F1 by 10.6 points in Urdu, 15.2 in German, and 13.9 in Bangla over an English-only…

desk verdict A credible empirical study with large F1 gains in low-resource SER, but the gains are not cleanly attributed to CL/BYOL because the baseline never sees unlabeled LRL data. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02059 v1 pith:WPOVHVEA submitted 2025-06-01 cs.SD cs.CL

Ziwei Gong , Pengyuan Shi , Kaan Donbekci , Lin Ai , Run Chen , David Sasu , Zehui Wu , Julia Hirschberg This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SDcs.CL
keywords speechemotionrecognitionlow-resourcelanguagesself-supervisedlearningcontrastiveBYOLcross-lingualtransferWhisperzero-shot
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 asks whether unlabeled speech from low-resource languages can substitute for missing emotion labels. It claims that two self-supervised pretraining schemes, speaker-contrastive learning and BYOL, applied alongside English emotion fine-tuning lift Macro F1 on Urdu, German, and Bangla by 10.6, 15.2, and 13.9 percentage points over a Whisper encoder trained only on English. If correct, emotion recognition can be extended to languages with almost no annotated emotion data by using easily obtainable speaker identities or raw audio instead. The paper also uses embedding visualization and error analysis to show that the gains come with clearer emotion clusters, and it exposes a gender-bias failure in the contrastive approach on Urdu.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is self-supervised adaptation of a Whisper encoder, specifically the Whisper.small.en model with its convolutional and positional layers frozen and a two-layer classification head attached. Contrastive learning uses the Normalized Temperature-scaled Cross Entropy loss to pull together two augmented views of the same speaker's utterance while pushing apart views from different speakers, forming positive and negative pairs from speaker labels in unlabeled low-resource data and then fine-tuning on English emotion labels. BYOL instead trains online and target networks with a momentum update and no negative pairs, mixing a cross-entropy loss on English emotion data with a BYOL loss on all available audio via $L_{\text{mixed}} = (1-\lambda) L_{CE} + \lambda L_{BYOL}$, with $\lambda$ decaying from 0.8 to 0.2. The work these components do is to force embeddings to be invariant to augmentation and, in the contrastive case, to encode speaker-distinguishing features that keep representations from being tied only to high-resource English speech.

What would settle it

Randomly permuting the speaker labels in the contrastive stage, with all other settings held fixed, would settle whether speaker identity is the active ingredient: if German zero-shot F1 stays near 0.90 and the Urdu and Bangla gains persist, the paper's hypothesized transfer mechanism is wrong even if the headline improvements reproduce.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that self-supervised pretraining on unlabeled low-resource speech improves cross-lingual zero-shot emotion recognition relative to English-only training. A Whisper encoder adapted by contrastive speaker learning reaches Macro F1 of 0.901 on German EMO-DB, 0.711 on Bangla SUBESCO, and 0.629 on Urdu, while BYOL reaches 0.653 on Urdu, 0.641 on Bangla, and 0.732 on German. The paper interprets this as evidence that speaker identity is a trainable proxy for emotionally relevant paralinguistic and lexical cues, and that BYOL's contrastive-free objective learns robust latent structure; the authors frame the overall result as learning more with less, using unlabeled data plus a small English emotion set.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that speaker identity is a useful self-supervised proxy for emotion-relevant features in low-resource languages; if forcing embedding consistency for low-resource speakers does not transfer to emotion discrimination, the contrastive pipeline loses its mechanism and the German and Bangla gains would need another explanation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • English-only SER models leave large F1 on the table for Urdu, German, and Bangla; the reported gains imply unlabeled in-language audio is a low-cost substitute for missing emotion labels.
  • Because the gains are measured in zero-shot evaluation on held-out low-resource sets, cold-start emotion recognition for a new language can precede any annotated emotion corpus.
  • The confusion-matrix analysis attributes most of the improvement to resolving anger/happiness and neutral/sad confusions, so the mechanism matters for valence-dependent tasks, not just arousal-based distinctions.
  • CL's dependence on large speaker-diverse unlabeled corpora and BYOL's preference for target-language data give practitioners a data-selection rule: match the self-supervised method to whatever unlabeled data is available.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors leave linguistic distance as a hypothesis; a direct extension of their logic is that ranking additional low-resource languages by distance from English should make contrastive gains shrink as distance grows.
  • Their gender-bias analysis implies a reporting practice the paper does not prescribe: SER results should be split by speaker gender, since the average Urdu CL gain masks a drop from 74% to 41% female accuracy.
  • Because speaker labels already ship with many speech corpora, the contrastive recipe should transfer to other Common Voice languages; the paper demonstrates three, so this portability claim remains to be shown.
  • One could combine CL and BYOL into a single objective, using speaker contrast only on speaker-balanced subsets, to keep CL's clustering while avoiding its gender skew; the paper does not test this.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two self-supervised methods to improve cross-lingual low-resource speech emotion recognition (SER): a two-stage contrastive-learning approach that first performs speaker-contrastive adaptation on unlabeled low-resource-language (LRL) Common Voice data and then fine-tunes on English emotion data, and a BYOL-based approach that jointly optimizes an English cross-entropy loss and a self-supervised BYOL objective on HRL plus LRL audio. Both methods use a Whisper encoder with a classification head. Evaluated on Urdu (URDU), German (EMODB), and Bangla (SUBESCO), the paper reports Macro F1 gains of 10.6%, 15.2%, and 13.9% relative to a Whisper baseline trained only on English emotion data. The paper also presents t-SNE visualizations, a confusion-matrix analysis, a gender-bias analysis on Urdu, and a data-source analysis comparing Common Voice versus target-dataset unlabeled data.

Significance. If the attributions were established, the paper would be a useful addition to low-resource SER, showing that self-supervised adaptation on unlabeled LRL speech can transfer to emotion classification after English-only fine-tuning. The work has several strengths: code is released, all results are averaged over five runs with standard deviations, evaluation uses public corpora, and the interpretability analysis (t-SNE, confusion matrices, gender bias) is a constructive attempt to understand behavior rather than only reporting accuracy. However, the central attribution claim is currently not fully supported because the baseline is confounded with the amount of LRL data exposure, and the BYOL evaluation protocol leaves room for leakage. These issues are fixable with additional controls, which is why I recommend major revision rather than rejection.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2 (Models Setup) and Table 1] The central claim that the contrastive and BYOL objectives cause the F1 improvements is not yet established because the comparison is confounded. The baseline is "trained exclusively on English emotion-annotated datasets and evaluated on out-of-domain LRL datasets in a zero-shot manner" (Section 3.2), whereas CL performs speaker-contrastive adaptation on LRL Common Voice subsets (Section 2.2, Stage 1) and BYOL includes LRL utterances in its self-supervised objective (Section 2.3). Thus CL and BYOL differ from the baseline in two ways simultaneously: the self-supervised loss and direct exposure to LRL-domain acoustic data. Section 4.3's own analysis, showing that performance depends strongly on which unlabeled data source is used, indicates that data exposure is itself an active ingredient. Please add a control that gives the baseline access to the same LRL unlabeled data under a non-contrastive, non-BYOL objective (e.g., reconstruction or masked-prediction), and report whether the F1 gains in Table 1 survive that control.
  2. [Section 3.1 (Datasets) and Section 2.3 (BYOL)] The BYOL cross-validation protocol is ambiguous and risks not being fully held-out. Section 3.1 states that "the left-out target language LRL fold serves as the test set," but Section 2.3 says the BYOL self-supervised objective is applied to "all available utterances (both HRL and LRL)." If the left-out test fold's unlabeled audio is included in the BYOL objective, then the model has been trained on test-set audio, which would inflate the reported BYOL numbers. Please state explicitly whether the left-out LRL test fold is excluded from both the supervised and self-supervised objectives, and clarify whether the 5-fold splits are speaker-disjoint; speaker overlap between train and test folds would especially inflate the speaker-contrastive adaptation results.
  3. [Section 4 (Results and Discussion)] The claim that the speaker-contrastive model achieves "the best-known performance on this dataset in an out-of-domain setting" for EmoDB is unsupported. No prior out-of-domain or zero-shot EmoDB results are cited or tabulated, and the term "out-of-domain setting" is not defined. Either remove this claim or substantiate it with a direct comparison to previously published zero-shot/out-of-domain EmoDB results using the same or comparable evaluation protocol.
  4. [Section 2.2 (Approach 1) and Section 2.3 (Approach 2)] The mechanism behind the gains is not isolated even within the SSL methods. The paper hypothesizes that enforcing speaker-embedding consistency transfers to emotion discrimination, but no ablation replaces the speaker-contrastive objective with a non-speaker instance-discrimination objective or with randomly assigned speaker labels. Similarly, hyperparameters τ in Eq. (1) and the schedule of λ in Eq. (2) are not justified by sensitivity experiments. Adding such ablations would make the attribution to the proposed speaker-contrastive and BYOL objectives substantially more credible.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Table 1] The abstract's "F1 score improvements of 10.6% in Urdu, 15.2% in German, and 13.9% in Bangla" are absolute percentage-point differences, and they come from different models: Urdu's 10.6 points is the BYOL Macro F1 gain, while German's 15.1 points and Bangla's 13.9 points are the CL Macro F1 gains. Please state this explicitly as absolute percentage points and indicate which model each number refers to.
  2. [Section 2.2, Eq. (1)] The denominator notation is unclear: "k denotes indices with a different speaker label than i" does not specify whether the denominator sum includes j or excludes the anchor i. Please write the summation index set explicitly.
  3. [Section 1 (Introduction)] The sentence "We proposal two unsupervised learning approaches" contains a typo; it should be "We propose two unsupervised learning approaches."
  4. [Section 3.1 (Datasets)] The sentence "resulting in 5 CV splits 5-fold CV is applied over sessions, and averaged" is grammatically incomplete and should be rewritten to describe the session-based fold construction and averaging procedure clearly.
  5. [Section 4.1 (Gender Bias in Urdu SER)] The statement that the dataset has "86% male dominance" should specify whether this refers to the URDU emotion corpus or the Urdu Common Voice subset and should cite or derive the statistic from the dataset documentation.
  6. [Section 2.3 and Section 3.3] The BYOL loss weight λ is said to be linearly scaled from 0.8 to 0.2, but the temperature τ used in Eq. (1) and any sensitivity analysis for these hyperparameters are not reported. Please report the values and any tuning procedure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline F1 gains are held-out measurements on public LRL corpora, not outputs re-derived from the method's own definitions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: CL and BYOL variants of a Whisper encoder achieve higher F1 than an English-only baseline on Urdu, German, and Bangla held-out test sets (Table 1). These numbers come from evaluation on public corpora (URDU, EMO-DB, SUBESCO) under 5-fold cross-validation, with the baseline trained only on English emotion data. Nothing in the method defines the target metric in terms of the method's inputs: the contrastive objective uses speaker labels (Section 2.2) and the BYOL objective uses unlabeled speech plus an English CE term (Section 2.3), while the reported F1 is computed on held-out emotion labels the models never see during adaptation. The only self-citations ([11], [13], [18], [34]) are ordinary literature references; [34] justifies merging 'excited' into 'happy', a preprocessing choice that applies equally to all compared models and is not the source of the reported differences. The interpretability discussion (T-SNE, confusion matrices, gender bias) is post-hoc and does not feed back into the reported scores. The most plausible methodological critique—that the baseline's zero-shot English-only training confounds the SSL objective with LRL data exposure—is an experimental confound, not a circular reduction: the F1 results are not forced by the method's definitions or by a self-citation chain. Accordingly, the paper receives a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on imported assumptions rather than on a derivation: the usefulness of speaker identity as a proxy label, the transferability of English emotion categories, the quality of the pretrained Whisper encoder, and the integrity of the cross-validation splits. The free parameters are standard self-supervised hyperparameters; none are fitted to the evaluation sets in a way that makes the headline numbers circular.

free parameters (2)
  • BYOL loss weight lambda = linearly scheduled from 0.8 to 0.2
    Weights the supervised cross-entropy and BYOL objectives in Eq. 2; chosen by hand rather than fitted to validation data.
  • NT-Xent temperature tau = not reported
    Temperature in Eq. 1 controls the sharpness of the contrastive distribution; the value is not stated in the paper, though performance depends on it.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Speaker identity in unlabeled LRL speech is a valid self-supervision signal that transfers to emotion recognition.
    Stated as a hypothesis in Section 2.2, Stage 1; if false, the contrastive stage should not improve SER.
  • domain assumption English emotion labels and the four emotion categories transfer across English, Urdu, German, and Bangla.
    All methods fine-tune only on English HRL data, so cross-lingual gains assume acoustic emotion cues align across these languages.
  • domain assumption Leave-one-session-out cross-validation prevents speaker or recording overlap between training and test folds for the LRL emotion datasets.
    Section 3.1 describes 5-fold CV over sessions; the paper does not confirm speaker disjointness, so BYOL gains could be inflated by leakage.
  • domain assumption Whisper encoder features are a suitable frozen substrate for speech emotion recognition.
    Section 3.2 initializes from Whisper.small.en and freezes convolutional and positional layers, importing a large pretrained model as a base.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning More with Less: Self-Supervised Approaches for Low-Resource Speech Emotion Recognition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WPOVHVEA

@misc{pith2026250602059,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning More with Less: Self-Supervised Approaches for Low-Resource Speech Emotion Recognition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WPOVHVEA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02059}
}
read the original abstract

Speech Emotion Recognition (SER) has seen significant progress with deep learning, yet remains challenging for Low-Resource Languages (LRLs) due to the scarcity of annotated data. In this work, we explore unsupervised learning to improve SER in low-resource settings. Specifically, we investigate contrastive learning (CL) and Bootstrap Your Own Latent (BYOL) as self-supervised approaches to enhance cross-lingual generalization. Our methods achieve notable F1 score improvements of 10.6% in Urdu, 15.2% in German, and 13.9% in Bangla, demonstrating their effectiveness in LRLs. Additionally, we analyze model behavior to provide insights on key factors influencing performance across languages, and also highlighting challenges in low-resource SER. This work provides a foundation for developing more inclusive, explainable, and robust emotion recognition systems for underrepresented languages.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02059 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagram of our proposed frameworks. Top: Contrastive Learning (CL). Bottom: Bootstrap Your Own Latent (BYOL). HRL and LRL signify High and Low Resource Languages. and invariance in learned features. 2.1. Data Processing and Augmentation For CL, during contrastive speaker adaptation, each utterance has two views: a clean version and an augmented version, form￾ing a positive pair since they share the same speaker labe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Both views of the same utterance with minimal over￾lap, forming a positive pair in contrastive adaptation or BYOL. 3. Experiments 3.1. Datasets We investigate the effectiveness of the above methods for low￾resource SER on 3 LRLs, Urdu, German, and Bangla, and one HRL English as comparison. For the HRL, We use MSP-Podcast [29] and IEMOCAP [30], both widely used for English SER. MSP-Podcast consists of speech from onl… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. T-SNE plots of learned embeddings on LRLs. Left: Baseline model after training. Middle: Speaker-contrastive model after training. Right: BYOL model after training. URDU, EmoDB, and SUBESCO. Performance on RAVDESS remained nearly identical to the baseline, showing no measur￾able improvement but also no deterioration. This suggests that despite our approach’s modifications, the models retain their discriminatory abili… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The goal of SER is to automatically infer emotional states from speech signals, enabling more natural and adaptive interactions between humans and machines

    Introduction Speech Emotion Recognition (SER) is a fundamental task in speech processing with applications in human-computer inter- action, affective computing, and mental health monitoring. The goal of SER is to automatically infer emotional states from speech signals, enabling more natural and adaptive interactions between humans and machines. Early app...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Learning More with Less: Self-Supervised Approaches for Low-Resource Speech Emotion Recognition

    Methodology We choose Contrastive Learning (CL) and Bootstrap Your Own Latent (BYOL) for their effectiveness in learning robust, gener- alizable representations from unlabeled data, a key requirement for low-resource SER. CLdifferentiates similar and dissimilar inputs using self- supervised similarity measures, relying on carefully selected negative sampl...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    happy,” “sad,

    Experiments 3.1. Datasets We investigate the effectiveness of the above methods for low- resource SER on 3 LRLs, Urdu, German, and Bangla, and one HRL English as comparison. For the HRL, We use MSP-Podcast [29] and IEMOCAP [30], both widely used for English SER. MSP-Podcast consists of speech from online podcast recordings, while IEMOCAP contains both act...

    work page

  4. [4]

    anger”/“happiness

    Results and Discussion For all three LRL datasets, models leveraging contrastive learn- ing and BYOL as a pre-training stage outperformed the base- line. Table 1 reports Accuracy, Macro F1, and UAR for the three LRL datasets and a held-out HRL dataset. Results are av- eraged over five runs with the standard deviation in the footnote and with the best-perf...

    work page

  5. [5]

    We use Whisper.small.en via transformers 4.39.3

    For all experiments, a training epoch lasts for 100 batches. We use Whisper.small.en via transformers 4.39.3. We repeat all experiments five times and report the mean and standard devi- ation of our metrics. During BYOL training, we linearly scale down the BYOL loss factorλfrom0.8to0.2. All trainings are executed on 2 Nvidia A5500 and 2 Nvidia L40 GPUs

    work page

  6. [6]

    Conclusion and Limitations In this work, we show that Contrastive Learning and and Boot- strap Your Own Latent enhance Speech Emotion Recogni- tion performance in low-resource settings, with clearer emo- tion class separation in learned embeddings. Our contributions includei)effective improvement in performance (F1) in low- resource settings: 10.6% in Urd...

    work page

  7. [7]

    The views, opin- ions and/or findings expressed are those of the authors solely

    Acknowledgements This research is supported in part by the Defense Advanced Re- search Projects Agency (DARPA), via the CCU Program con- tract HR001122C0034, and the National Science Foundation via ARNI Columbia 2025 Research Project. The views, opin- ions and/or findings expressed are those of the authors solely

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Modular neural-svm scheme for speech emotion recognition using anova feature selec- tion method,

    M. Sheikhan, M. Bejani, and D. Gharavian, “Modular neural-svm scheme for speech emotion recognition using anova feature selec- tion method,”Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 23, pp. 215–227, 2013

    work page 2013

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Amplitude modulation features for emotion recognition from speech

    M. J. Alam, Y . Attabi, P. Dumouchel, P. Kenny, and D. D. O’Shaughnessy, “Amplitude modulation features for emotion recognition from speech.” inINTERSPEECH, 2013, pp. 2420– 2424

    2013

  2. [10]

    Enhanced multiclass svm with threshold- ing fusion for speech-based emotion classification,

    N. Yang, J. Yuan, Y . Zhou, I. Demirkol, Z. Duan, W. Heinzelman, and M. Sturge-Apple, “Enhanced multiclass svm with threshold- ing fusion for speech-based emotion classification,”International journal of speech technology, vol. 20, pp. 27–41, 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    Selection of features for emotion recognition from speech,

    P. R. Chaudhari and J. S. R. Alex, “Selection of features for emotion recognition from speech,”Indian Journal of Science and Technology, vol. 9, no. 39, pp. 1–5, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    Hidden markov model- based speech emotion recognition,

    B. Schuller, G. Rigoll, and M. Lang, “Hidden markov model- based speech emotion recognition,” in2003 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 2003. Proceedings.(ICASSP’03)., vol. 2. Ieee, 2003, pp. II–1

    2003

  5. [13]

    A modified feature selec- tion method based on metaheuristic algorithms for speech emo- tion recognition,

    S. Yildirim, Y . Kaya, and F. Kılıc ¸, “A modified feature selec- tion method based on metaheuristic algorithms for speech emo- tion recognition,”Applied Acoustics, vol. 173, p. 107721, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Speech emotion recognition based on formant characteristics feature ex- traction and phoneme type convergence,

    Z.-T. Liu, A. Rehman, M. Wu, W.-H. Cao, and M. Hao, “Speech emotion recognition based on formant characteristics feature ex- traction and phoneme type convergence,”Information Sciences, vol. 563, pp. 309–325, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Efficient speech emo- tion recognition using modified feature extraction,

    S. Langari, H. Marvi, and M. Zahedi, “Efficient speech emo- tion recognition using modified feature extraction,”Informatics in Medicine Unlocked, vol. 20, p. 100424, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Speech emotion recognition using support vector ma- chine,

    M. Jain, S. Narayan, P. Balaji, A. Bhowmick, R. K. Muthu et al., “Speech emotion recognition using support vector ma- chine,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.07590, 2020

    2002 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Improving speech emotion recognition in under-resourced languages via speech-to-speech translation with bootstrapping data selection,

    H.-C. Lin, Y .-C. Lin, H.-C. Chou, and H.-y. Lee, “Improving speech emotion recognition in under-resourced languages via speech-to-speech translation with bootstrapping data selection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.10985, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Multimodal multi-loss fusion network for sentiment analysis,

    Z. Wu, Z. Gong, J. Koo, and J. Hirschberg, “Multimodal multi-loss fusion network for sentiment analysis,” inProceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (V olume 1: Long Papers), ...

    2024

  11. [19]

    A new approach to accent recognition and conversion for mandarin chinese,

    L. Ai, S.-Y . Jeng, and H. Beigi, “A new approach to accent recognition and conversion for mandarin chinese,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.03359, 2020

    2008 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Beyond silent letters: Amplifying llms in emotion recognition with vocal nuances,

    Z. Wu, Z. Gong, L. Ai, P. Shi, K. Donbekci, and J. Hirschberg, “Beyond silent letters: Amplifying llms in emotion recognition with vocal nuances,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/ abs/2407.21315

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Context-independent multilingual emo- tion recognition from speech signals,

    V . Hozjan and Z. Kaˇciˇc, “Context-independent multilingual emo- tion recognition from speech signals,”International journal of speech technology, vol. 6, pp. 311–320, 2003

    2003

  14. [22]

    On acoustic emotion recognition: compensating for covariate shift,

    A. Hassan, R. Damper, and M. Niranjan, “On acoustic emotion recognition: compensating for covariate shift,”IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 1458–1468, 2013

    2013

  15. [23]

    Cross-corpus speech emotion recognition based on transfer non- negative matrix factorization,

    P. Song, W. Zheng, S. Ou, X. Zhang, Y . Jin, J. Liu, and Y . Yu, “Cross-corpus speech emotion recognition based on transfer non- negative matrix factorization,”Speech Communication, vol. 83, pp. 34–41, 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    Deep implicit distribution alignment networks for cross-corpus speech emotion recognition,

    Y . Zhao, J. Wang, Y . Zong, W. Zheng, H. Lian, and L. Zhao, “Deep implicit distribution alignment networks for cross-corpus speech emotion recognition,” inICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  17. [25]

    Multimodal emotion recognition in conversations: A survey of methods, trends, challenges and prospects,

    C. Wu, Y . Cai, Y . Liu, P. Zhu, Y . Xue, Z. Gong, J. Hirschberg, and B. Ma, “Multimodal emotion recognition in conversations: A survey of methods, trends, challenges and prospects,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.20511

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Contrastive unsupervised learning for speech emotion recognition,

    M. Li, B. Yang, J. Levy, A. Stolcke, V . Rozgic, S. Matsoukas, C. Papayiannis, D. Bone, and C. Wang, “Contrastive unsupervised learning for speech emotion recognition,” inICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, ...

    2021

  19. [27]

    Scser: Supervised contrastive learning for speech emotion recognition using transformers,

    V . S. Alaparthi, T. R. Pasam, D. A. Inagandla, J. Prakash, and P. K. Singh, “Scser: Supervised contrastive learning for speech emotion recognition using transformers,” in15th international conference on human system interaction. IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–7

    2022

  20. [28]

    Bootstrap your own latent-a new approach to self-supervised learning,

    J.-B. Grill, F. Strub, F. Altch ´e, C. Tallec, P. Richemond, E. Buchatskaya, C. Doersch, B. Avila Pires, Z. Guo, M. Ghesh- laghi Azaret al., “Bootstrap your own latent-a new approach to self-supervised learning,”Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems, vol. 33, pp....

    2020

  21. [29]

    Byol for audio: Self-supervised learning for general-purpose au- dio representation,

    D. Niizumi, D. Takeuchi, Y . Ohishi, N. Harada, and K. Kashino, “Byol for audio: Self-supervised learning for general-purpose au- dio representation,” in2021 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–8

    2021

  22. [30]

    wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech repre- sentations,

    A. Baevski, Y . Zhou, A. Mohamed, and M. Auli, “wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech repre- sentations,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 12 449–12 460, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    SpecAugment: A simple data augmen- tation method for automatic speech recognition,

    D. S. Park, W. Chan, Y . Zhang, C.-C. Chiu, B. Zoph, E. D. Cubuk, and Q. V . Le, “SpecAugment: A simple data augmen- tation method for automatic speech recognition,”arXiv [eess.AS], Apr. 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Revealing emo- tional clusters in speaker embeddings: A contrastive learning strategy for speech emotion recognition,

    I. R. Ulgen, Z. Du, C. Busso, and B. Sisman, “Revealing emo- tional clusters in speaker embeddings: A contrastive learning strategy for speech emotion recognition,”arXiv [eess.AS], Jan. 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    A comparative study of pre-trained speech and audio embeddings for speech emotion recognition,

    O. C. Phukan, A. B. Buduru, and R. Sharma, “A comparative study of pre-trained speech and audio embeddings for speech emotion recognition,”arXiv [eess.AS], Apr. 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    ECAPA- TDNN: Emphasized channel attention, propagation and aggrega- tion in TDNN based speaker verification,

    B. Desplanques, J. Thienpondt, and K. Demuynck, “ECAPA- TDNN: Emphasized channel attention, propagation and aggrega- tion in TDNN based speaker verification,”arXiv [eess.AS], May 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Improved deep metric learning with multi-class N-pair loss objective,

    K. Sohn, “Improved deep metric learning with multi-class N-pair loss objective,”Neural Inf Process Syst, vol. 29, pp. 1849–1857, Dec. 2016

    2016

  28. [36]

    Building naturalistic emotionally bal- anced speech corpus by retrieving emotional speech from ex- isting podcast recordings,

    R. Lotfian and C. Busso, “Building naturalistic emotionally bal- anced speech corpus by retrieving emotional speech from ex- isting podcast recordings,” https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/ 8003425, accessed: 2024-2-5

    2024

  29. [37]

    IEMOCAP: interactive emotional dyadic motion capture database,

    C. Busso, M. Bulut, C.-C. Lee, A. Kazemzadeh, E. Mower, S. Kim, J. N. Chang, S. Lee, and S. S. Narayanan, “IEMOCAP: interactive emotional dyadic motion capture database,”Lang. Re- sour . Eval., vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 335–359, Dec. 2008

    2008

  30. [38]

    A database of german emotional speech,

    F. Burkhardt, A. Paeschke, M. Rolfes, W. F. Sendlmeier, and B. Weiss, “A database of german emotional speech,” inInter- speech 2005, vol. 5. ISCA: ISCA, Sep. 2005, pp. 1517–1520

    2005

  31. [39]

    Cross lingual speech emotion recognition: Urdu vs. western languages,

    S. Latif, A. Qayyum, M. Usman, and J. Qadir, “Cross lingual speech emotion recognition: Urdu vs. western languages,”arXiv [cs.CL], Dec. 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    SUST bangla emotional speech corpus (SUBESCO): An audio-only emotional speech corpus for bangla,

    S. Sultana, M. S. Rahman, M. R. Selim, and M. Z. Iqbal, “SUST bangla emotional speech corpus (SUBESCO): An audio-only emotional speech corpus for bangla,”PLoS One, vol. 16, no. 4, p. e0250173, Apr. 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    A mapping on current classifying categories of emotions used in multimodal models for emotion recognition,

    Z. Gong, M. Yao, X. Hu, X. Zhu, and J. Hirschberg, “A mapping on current classifying categories of emotions used in multimodal models for emotion recognition,” inProceedings of the 18th Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LA W-XVIII). St. Julians, Malta: Association for Computatio...

    2024

  34. [42]

    Common voice: A massively-multilingual speech corpus,

    R. Ardila, M. Branson, K. Davis, M. Henretty, M. Kohler, J. Meyer, R. Morais, L. Saunders, F. M. Tyers, and G. Weber, “Common voice: A massively-multilingual speech corpus,”arXiv [cs.CL], Dec. 2019

    2019

  35. [43]

    Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, T. Xu, G. Brockman, C. McLeavey, and I. Sutskever, “Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision,” Technical report, OpenAI, 2022. URL https://cdn. openai. com/papers/whisper. pdf, Tech. Rep., 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    Towards generalizable SER: Soft labeling and data augmentation for modeling temporal emotion shifts in large-scale multilingual speech,

    M. Osman, T. Nadeem, and G. Khoriba, “Towards generalizable SER: Soft labeling and data augmentation for modeling temporal emotion shifts in large-scale multilingual speech,”arXiv [cs.CL], Nov. 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    Decoupled weight decay regulariza- tion,

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter, “Decoupled weight decay regulariza- tion,”arXiv [cs.LG], Nov. 2017

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.