Cross-Corpus Multilingual Speech Emotion Recognition: Amharic vs. Other Languages

Ephrem Afele Retta; Richard Sutcliffe; Jabar Mahmood; Michael Abebe Berwo; Eiad Almekhlafi; Sajjad Ahmed Khan; Shehzad Ashraf Chaudhry; Mustafa Mhamed; Jun Feng

arXiv · 2307.10814

Cross-Corpus Multilingual Speech Emotion Recognition: Amharic vs. Other Languages

Ephrem Afele Retta·Richard Sutcliffe·Jabar Mahmood·Michael Abebe Berwo·Eiad Almekhlafi·Sajjad Ahmed Khan·Shehzad Ashraf Chaudhry·Mustafa Mhamed·Jun Feng

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In a conventional Speech emotion recognition (SER) task, a classifier for a given language is trained on a pre-existing dataset for that same language. However, where training data for a language does not exist, data from other languages can be used instead. We experiment with cross-lingual and multilingual SER, working with Amharic, English, German and URDU. For Amharic, we use our own publicly-available Amharic Speech Emotion Dataset (ASED). For English, German and Urdu we use the existing RAVDESS, EMO-DB and URDU datasets. We followed previous research in mapping labels for all datasets to just two classes, positive and negative. Thus we can compare performance on different languages directly, and combine languages for training and testing. In Experiment 1, monolingual SER trials were carried out using three classifiers, AlexNet, VGGE (a proposed variant of VGG), and ResNet50. Results averaged for the three models were very similar for ASED and RAVDESS, suggesting that Amharic and English SER are equally difficult. Similarly, German SER is more difficult, and Urdu SER is easier. In Experiment 2, we trained on one language and tested on another, in both directions for each pair: Amharic<->German, Amharic<->English, and Amharic<->Urdu. Results with Amharic as target suggested that using English or German as source will give the best result. In Experiment 3, we trained on several non-Amharic languages and then tested on Amharic. The best accuracy obtained was several percent greater than the best accuracy in Experiment 2, suggesting that a better result can be obtained when using two or three non-Amharic languages for training than when using just one non-Amharic language. Overall, the results suggest that cross-lingual and multilingual training can be an effective strategy for training a SER classifier when resources for a language are scarce.

Explore related subjects

cs.CL cs.NE cs.SD eess.AS

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Ephrem Afele Retta, Richard Sutcliffe, Jabar Mahmood, Michael Abebe Berwo, Eiad Almekhlafi, Sajjad Ahmed Khan, Shehzad Ashraf Chaudhry, Mustafa Mhamed, Jun Feng. 2023-07-20. Cross-Corpus Multilingual Speech Emotion Recognition: Amharic vs. Other Languages. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.10814

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Universal Topological Regularity of Syntactic Structures

Despite their widespread use, the principles governing the organisation of syntactic dependency trees remain poorly understood. I analyse dependency trees from 124 typologically, genetically, and geographically diverse languages. Their topology departs systematically from randomness. Relative to uniformly sampled random trees, dependency trees exhibit greater structural robustness and lower branching heterogeneity. I propose that these universal regularities emerge naturally from incremental grammatical encoding. I model this process using sublinear preferential attachment. The model accurately reproduces the observed topology. More generally, the results demonstrate how a universal statistical property of syntax can emerge from a simple, cognitively motivated generative process. They further illustrate a broader principle of efficiency by construction: communicatively efficient syntactic structures can emerge without direct optimisation for communication.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

An Incomplete Loop: Deductive, Inductive, and Abductive Reasoning in Language Models

Modern language models (LMs) can learn to perform new tasks in different ways: in instruction following, the target task is described explicitly in natural language; in few-shot prompting, the task is specified implicitly with a small number of examples; in instruction inference, LMs are presented with in-context examples and are then prompted to generate a natural language task description before making predictions. Each of these procedures may be thought of as invoking a different form of reasoning: instruction following involves deductive reasoning, few-shot prompting involves inductive reasoning, and instruction inference involves abductive reasoning. How do these different capabilities relate? Across four LMs (from the gpt and llama families) and two learning problems (involving arithmetic functions and machine translation) we find a strong dissociation between the different types of reasoning: LMs can sometimes learn effectively from few-shot prompts even when they are unable to explain their own prediction rules; conversely, they sometimes infer useful task descriptions while completely failing to learn from human-generated descriptions of the same task. Our results highlight the non-systematic nature of reasoning even in some of today's largest LMs, and underscore the fact that very different learning mechanisms may be invoked by seemingly similar prompting procedures.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Thinking beyond the anthropomorphic paradigm benefits LLM research

Anthropomorphism, or the attribution of human traits to technology, is an automatic and unconscious response that occurs even in those with advanced technical expertise. In this position paper, we analyze hundreds of thousands of research articles to present empirical evidence of the prevalence and growth of anthropomorphic terminology in research on large language models (LLMs). We argue for challenging the deeper assumptions reflected in this terminology -- which, though often useful, may inadvertently constrain LLM development -- and broadening beyond them to open new pathways for understanding and improving LLMs. Specifically, we identify and examine five anthropomorphic assumptions that shape research across the LLM development lifecycle. For each assumption (e.g., that LLMs must use natural language for reasoning, or that they should be evaluated on benchmarks originally meant for humans), we demonstrate empirical, non-anthropomorphic alternatives that remain under-explored yet offer promising directions for LLM research and development.

cs.CL↗