On the Contribution of Lexical Features to Speech Emotion Recognition

David Combei

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 23 references

On the Contribution of Lexical Features to Speech Emotion Recognition

T0 review · 3 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 On MELD, a lexical-only pipeline (Whisper transcriptions + DeBERTa layer 19 + a simple MLP) reaches 51.5% weighted F1, surpassing the best acoustic-only pipeline at 49.3%.

desk verdict A useful, clearly-reported benchmark showing that a frozen-DeBERTa-on-Whisper-transcripts pipeline beats acoustic baselines on MELD; the margin is real but not statistically secured. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05634 v1 pith:IVP235J4 submitted 2025-09-06 eess.AS cs.CLcs.SD

David Combei This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.AScs.CLcs.SD

keywords speechemotionrecognitionlexicalfeaturesacousticself-supervisedlearningWhisperDeBERTaMELDlayer-wiseanalysis

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

The paper asks whether the words people say carry enough emotional information for speech emotion recognition on their own, without any acoustic/prosodic features. Using MELD, it builds two pipelines that are identical except for the input: audio is either fed into a frozen self-supervised speech model or first transcribed by Whisper-large-v3 and then fed into a frozen text model. The lexical pipeline, with DeBERTa layer-19 features and a three-layer MLP, achieves 51.5% weighted F1 on the test set, beating the paper's best acoustic pipeline (wav2vec2-xls-r-2b layer 26 + MLP) at 49.3%, and also beating published acoustic SER systems on MELD. The authors conclude that lexical content extracted through ASR can carry substantial emotional information, so treating SER as a natural-language problem is a viable route. The result is bounded: with manual transcripts the same lexical approach reaches 60.9%, so ASR quality is the main bottleneck.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a matched-feature-extraction comparison: frozen self-supervised encoders (wav2vec variants for audio, BERT/XLM-R/DeBERTa for text) provide fixed representations, average pooling collapses them to one vector per utterance, and the same three-layer MLP classifies the seven MELD emotions. The lexical route inserts Whisper-large-v3 as the speech-to-text front end. Layer-wise extraction from each transformer is the tool that identifies layer 19 of DeBERTa and layer 26 of XLS-R-2B as the emotionally richest representations.

What would settle it

Corrupt Whisper transcripts on MELD dev by deleting or replacing the emotion-bearing words (e.g., 'happy', 'angry', 'sad') and rerun the same DeBERTa layer-19 + MLP pipeline; if lexical WF1 falls below the 49.3% acoustic baseline, the lexical advantage depends on those words surviving ASR rather than on lexical information generally.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, on the MELD benchmark, lexical features derived from automatic speech recognition can exceed acoustic-only features for emotion recognition: the best lexical pipeline (Whisper-large-v3 → DeBERTa layer 19 → average pooling → MLP) scores 51.5% WF1 on the test set versus 49.3% for the best acoustic pipeline (wav2vec2-xls-r-2b layer 26 → MLP). The paper also reports that intermediate transformer layers are more emotion-relevant than final layers in both modalities, that generic neural denoising (DEMUCS) consistently hurts both pipelines, and that the gap between manual transcripts (60.9%) and Whisper transcripts (51.7% on dev) localizes most of the remaining loss to AS

Load-bearing premise

The lexical pipeline's result depends on Whisper transcriptions preserving the emotion-bearing words; on the development set, switching from manual transcriptions to Whisper transcriptions drops WF1 from 60.9% to 51.7%, so the 51.5% test score measures lexical content filtered through ASR errors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If lexical-only SER keeps this margin on other conversational datasets, emotion recognition systems can be built from off-the-shelf ASR and text SSL models with a small classifier, lowering compute and simplifying deployment.
The 60.9% versus 51.7% gap shows the lexical route's ceiling is currently set by ASR fidelity; targeted ASR error correction is a concrete next lever.
Since denoising hurts both modalities, generic speech enhancement should not be applied upstream of SER; enhancement must be trained with the downstream task in mind.
Layer-wise results imply emotion-relevant information is concentrated in middle transformer layers, so feature extraction should not default to the final hidden state.
The limitation on RAVDESS shows lexical-only SER is not universal; datasets with multiple emotion labels per utterance need different handling.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: MELD annotations come from conversational text-plus-audio judging, so the lexical advantage may partly reflect that annotators rely on what is said; on prosody-driven or acted corpora, acoustic features would likely regain the lead.
Editorial inference: because ASR errors are the bottleneck, one testable extension is to condition the text encoder on ASR confidence scores or to fine-tune the ASR output with a small emotion-oriented correction model, which the paper does not test.
Editorial inference: the layer-wise curves suggest an ensemble or learned mixture of middle layers could outperform single-layer extraction for both modalities, a cheap extension of the reported findings.
Editorial inference: word-level prosodic features aligned to transcript timestamps might combine lexical and acoustic information without full acoustic modeling, preserving phonetic cues that plain transcripts discard.

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

Combei's paper is a straightforward empirical comparison: frozen SSL features from speech and text, fed into a fixed MLP, evaluated on MELD. The headline result is that Whisper-large-v3 transcripts + DeBERTa layer-19 features reach 51.5% WF1 on the test set, versus 49.3% for the best acoustic pipeline (XLS-R-2B layer-26) and 48.9% for the previous DST state of the art. The layer-wise sweeps across seven encoders are systematic, the dev-to-test protocol is honest, and the manual-transcript result (60.9% dev WF1) is reported rather than hidden. The denoising experiments add a small but useful negative result: DEMUCS hurts both acoustic and lexical pipelines.

What's actually new is the specific combination and the direct head-to-head: an ASR-to-text pipeline with frozen SSL can beat a much larger acoustic model on MELD. That is worth knowing. The paper doesn't overclaim the architecture; it explicitly frames the result as evidence that lexical content carries substantial emotional information, which is consistent with the manual-transcript numbers.

The soft spots are mostly about statistical support. There are no error bars, no repeated seeds, no confidence intervals. The 2.2-point test gap between lexical and acoustic could shrink or disappear under retraining; the dev gap is slightly larger (51.7 vs 48.9) but still a point estimate. Selecting the best layer on dev across dozens of layers without correction means some selection inflation is baked in, though this is common practice. The larger hidden variable is ASR quality: the pipeline loses 9 points when going from manual transcripts to Whisper on dev. That doesn't undermine the claim that lexical content carries emotion (manual transcripts are even better), but it means the practical advantage over acoustics is specific to Whisper's transcription quality on this dataset. Single dataset, no code, and no reproducibility artifacts make it harder to judge.

Who is this for? Anyone working on SER or multimodal emotion recognition, especially those deciding whether to invest in ASR+text pipelines. It deserves a serious referee, but acceptance should be conditional on adding at least repeated runs (seeds) and preferably a small statistical comparison (e.g., bootstrap or paired test) for the main claim. The central result is plausible; the evidence just isn't there yet to declare a stable victory.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether lexical features extracted from speech via ASR can match or surpass acoustic features for speech emotion recognition on MELD. Using frozen SSL encoders (wav2vec2 variants for acoustics; BERT, XLM-R, and DeBERTa for text) and a fixed three-layer MLP, the author performs a layer-wise analysis on the development set and evaluates the best layer from each modality on the test set. The best lexical pipeline (Whisper-large-v3 transcription + DeBERTa layer 19 + MLP) reaches 51.5% weighted F1, compared to 49.3% for the best acoustic pipeline (wav2vec2-xls-r-2b layer 26 + MLP). The paper also reports a manual-transcript dev result of 60.9% WF1 and a denoising ablation showing consistent degradation with DEMUCS. The central conclusion is that lexical content carries substantial emotional information and can outperform acoustic-only features in this setup.

Significance. If the result holds, it is a valuable empirical counterweight to the assumption that prosody dominates SER: it shows that modern ASR plus text SSL features alone are competitive with large acoustic models on a standard benchmark. The layer-wise analysis across seven SSL encoders is a useful reference, and the comparison between manual and ASR transcripts directly quantifies the ceiling and the real-world cost of ASR errors. The evaluation protocol is transparent: layer selection is on dev and the final scores are on a held-out test set. The main weakness is that the headline superiority claim rests on a single MLP run with no variance estimate, and the ASR error sensitivity is only partially characterized. If these gaps are addressed, the paper would be a solid empirical contribution to the SER literature.

major comments (3)

[Section IV-C, Table III; Section III-D] The headline comparison (51.5% vs 49.3% WF1) is a point estimate from a single MLP training run. Section III-D reports 500 epochs, Adam, and lr=3e-5, but no random seed, no repeated runs, and no confidence intervals. A 2.2-point gap on a 7-class weighted F1 can easily be within run-to-run variance for a small MLP. Please report mean ± std over multiple seeds (or a paired bootstrap over test utterances) for the two best pipelines, and state whether a fixed seed was used across all conditions.
[Section IV-B] The dev-set comparison between manual transcripts (60.9% WF1) and Whisper-large-v3 transcripts (51.7% WF1) shows a 9.2-point degradation attributable to ASR errors. Because the test result in Table III is obtained with Whisper transcriptions, the claim that the lexical pipeline is deployable in real-world scenarios depends on ASR quality. The paper gives no Word Error Rate, no error analysis, and no per-emotion breakdown. Please add WER for the ASR output on the MELD partitions and at least a confusion-matrix or per-class WF1 comparison for the lexical pipeline, so readers can see whether ASR errors disproportionately hurt certain emotions.
[Section III-D] The MLP classifier is underspecified: the text only says 'three hidden layers.' Hidden sizes, activation, batch size, dropout, and normalization are not given, and the abstract's reference to the acoustic pipeline's 'larger parameter count' is never quantified. These details are necessary to assess whether the acoustic and lexical pipelines are compared on equal footing and to reproduce the experiments. Please report the exact architecture and the number of trainable parameters for both top pipelines.

minor comments (6)

[Section III-A] The paper does not report the MELD class distribution or the train/dev/test utterance counts. This would help readers interpret the weighted F1 scores and assess class-imbalance effects.
[Table II and Table I headings] The denoised columns are labeled 'D -' which is visually awkward. Consider using 'Denoised' or a clear subscript.
[Section IV-A] The text says 'mid-level representations' achieve the best acoustic performance, but Layer 26 of a 48-layer model is upper-mid. Please clarify whether 'mid-level' refers to the middle of the sweep or the middle of the network.
[References] Reference [20] lacks venue and year; reference [22] lacks publisher information. Please complete the bibliography.
[Section IV-C, Table III] The 60.9% manual-transcript dev result is reported only in prose. Consider adding it to Table III (with a note that it is dev, not test) so the ASR degradation is visible in the main comparison.
[Section III-D] No code or configuration file is provided. While not required, releasing the training/evaluation script would substantially improve reproducibility, especially given the large layer sweeps.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the reported WF1 scores are out-of-sample empirical results, and the only self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical benchmark result, not a derivation. The key numbers (51.5% vs. 49.3% WF1) are produced by a fixed pipeline: frozen SSL features, average pooling, an MLP with a fixed architecture trained for 500 epochs, with the top layer selected on the MELD development partition and the final WF1 computed on the held-out test partition. There is no equation that defines the test result in terms of the development-selected hyperparameters; dev-set model selection is standard and does not force the test outcome. The only self-citations are [19] and [21] in Section III-D, used to justify using a simple MLP because SSL representations are strong; that design choice neither defines nor is defined by the reported WF1 values, and it is not load-bearing for the lexical-vs-acoustic comparison. The manual-transcript result (60.9% dev WF1) is an auxiliary control, not a fitted input. I find no circular step; the paper's limitation note about RAVDESS is ancillary and not an admission of circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new mathematical axioms or entities; it is an empirical benchmark. The listed assumptions are domain and implementation choices that the central comparison depends on.

free parameters (2)

Best transformer layer per encoder = DeBERTa layer 19; XLS-R layer 26
Selected based on development set WF1 (51.73% and 48.89% respectively); model selection parameter, though final test results are out-of-sample.
MLP hidden layer sizes = Not specified
The paper states a three-hidden-layer MLP but never gives hidden dimensions or activation details, affecting model capacity.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption MELD emotion labels by majority vote are ground truth
Section III-A; all metrics depend on annotation quality.
domain assumption Frozen SSL encoders are adequate feature extractors without fine-tuning
Section III-B; the pipeline assumes these encoders produce meaningful representations when left frozen.
domain assumption Whisper-large-v3 transcriptions are sufficient for emotion recognition
Section III-C; the manual-transcript experiment (60.9% vs 51.5%) shows ASR accuracy strongly affects results.
domain assumption Average pooling over time/token dimensions is a sufficient aggregation
Section III-D; fixed-size vectors from pooled representations may discard temporal or positional cues.
domain assumption The fixed MLP training setup (500 epochs, lr 3e-5) yields comparable convergence across all encoders
Section III-D; fairness of the acoustic versus lexical comparison depends on this.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Contribution of Lexical Features to Speech Emotion Recognition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IVP235J4

@misc{pith2026250905634,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Contribution of Lexical Features to Speech Emotion Recognition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IVP235J4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05634}
}

read the original abstract

Although paralinguistic cues are often considered the primary drivers of speech emotion recognition (SER), we investigate the role of lexical content extracted from speech and show that it can achieve competitive and in some cases higher performance compared to acoustic models. On the MELD dataset, our lexical-based approach obtains a weighted F1-score (WF1) of 51.5%, compared to 49.3% for an acoustic-only pipeline with a larger parameter count. Furthermore, we analyze different self-supervised (SSL) speech and text representations, conduct a layer-wise study of transformer-based encoders, and evaluate the effect of audio denoising.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

Cross-modal fusion techniques for utterance-level emotion recognition from text and speech,

J. Luo, H. Phan, and J. D. Reiss, “Cross-modal fusion techniques for utterance-level emotion recognition from text and speech,” in *Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust. Speech Signal Process.* (ICASSP), 2023

work page 2023
[2]

Artificial intelligence-driven customer service: Enhancing personalization, loyalty, and customer satisfaction,

D. Patil, “Artificial intelligence-driven customer service: Enhancing personalization, loyalty, and customer satisfaction,” *SSRN*, Nov. 20, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5057432. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.5057432

work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.5057432 2024
[3]

Speech emotion recognition via graph-based representations,

A. Pentari, G. Kafentzis, and M. Tsiknakis, “Speech emotion recognition via graph-based representations,” *Scientific Reports*, vol. 14, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-52989-2

work page doi:10.1038/s41598-024-52989-2 2024
[4]

A review on speech emotion recog- nition: A survey, recent advances, challenges, and the influence of noise,

S. M. George and P. M. Ilyas, “A review on speech emotion recog- nition: A survey, recent advances, challenges, and the influence of noise,” *Neurocomputing*, vol. 568, Art. no. 127015, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2023.127015

work page arXiv 2024
[5]

Survey on bimodal speech emotion recognition from acoustic and linguistic informa- tion fusion,

B. Tris Atmaja, A. Sasou, and M. Akagi, “Survey on bimodal speech emotion recognition from acoustic and linguistic informa- tion fusion,” *Speech Communication*, vol. 140, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.specom.2022.03.002

work page doi:10.1016/j.specom.2022.03.002 2022
[6]

DST: Deformable Speech Transformer for emotion recognition,

W. Chen, X. Xing, X. Xu, J. Pang, and L. Du, “DST: Deformable Speech Transformer for emotion recognition,” in *Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP)*, 2023, pp. 1–5

work page 2023
[7]

Temporal-frequency state space duality: An efficient paradigm for speech emotion recognition,

J. Zhao, F. Wang, K. Li, Y . Wei, S. Tang, S. Zhao, and X. Sun, “Temporal-frequency state space duality: An efficient paradigm for speech emotion recognition,” in *Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP)*, 2025, pp. 1–5

work page 2025
[8]

DWFormer: Dy- namic Window transFormer for speech emotion recognition,

S. Chen, X. Xing, W. Zhang, W. Chen, and X. Xu, “DWFormer: Dy- namic Window transFormer for speech emotion recognition,” in *Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP)*, 2023, pp. 1–4

work page 2023

Show all 23 references

[9]

SpeechFormer: A hierarchical efficient framework incorporating the characteristics of speech,

W. Chen, X. Xing, X. Xu, J. Pang, and L. Du, “SpeechFormer: A hierarchical efficient framework incorporating the characteristics of speech,” in *Proc. Interspeech*, 2022, pp. 1–5

2022
[10]

SpeechFormer++: A hierarchical efficient framework for paralinguistic speech processing,

W. Chen, X. Xing, X. Xu, J. Pang, and L. Du, “SpeechFormer++: A hierarchical efficient framework for paralinguistic speech processing,” *IEEE/ACM Trans. Audio, Speech, Lang. Process.*, 2023, pp. 1–14

2023
[11]

MELD: A multimodal multi-party dataset for emotion recognition in conversations,

S. Poria, D. Hazarika, N. Majumder, G. Naik, E. Cambria, and R. Mihal- cea, “MELD: A multimodal multi-party dataset for emotion recognition in conversations,” in *Proc. 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)*, Florence, Italy, 2019, pp. 527–536

2019
[12]

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

A. Baevski, Y . Zhou, A. Mohamed, and M. Auli, “wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech representations,” in NeurIPS, 2020

2020
[13]

Seamless: Multilingual expressive and streaming speech translation,

Seamless Communication et al., “Seamless: Multilingual expressive and streaming speech translation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.05187, Dec. 2023

2023 arXiv
[14]

BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

J. Devlin, M. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” in *Proc. NAACL-HLT*, 2019, pp. 4171–4186

2019
[15]

Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale,

A. Conneau et al., “Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale,” in *Proc. ACL*, 2020, pp. 8440–8451

2020
[16]

DeBERTa: Decoding-enhanced BERT with disentangled attention,

P. He, X. Liu, J. Gao, and W. Chen, “DeBERTa: Decoding-enhanced BERT with disentangled attention,” in *Proc. ICLR*, 2021

2021
[17]

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,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.04356, Dec. 2022

2022 arXiv
[18]

Real time speech enhancement in the waveform domain,

A. Defossez, G. Synnaeve, and Y . Adi, “Real time speech enhancement in the waveform domain,” in *Proc. Interspeech*, 2020, pp. 3291–3295

2020
[19]

Unmasking real-world audio deepfakes: A data-centric approach,

D. Combei, A. Stan, D. Oneata, N. M ¨uller, and H. Cucu, “Unmasking real-world audio deepfakes: A data-centric approach,” in *Proc. Inter- speech*, 2025

2025
[20]

A change of heart: Improving speech emotion recognition through speech-to-text modality conversion

Z. S. Taghavi, A. Satvaty, and H. Sameti, “A change of heart: Improving speech emotion recognition through speech-to-text modality conversion”
[21]

TADA: Training-free attribution and out-of-domain detection of audio deepfakes,

A. Stan, D. Combei, D. Oneata, and H. Cucu, “TADA: Training-free attribution and out-of-domain detection of audio deepfakes,” in *Proc. Interspeech*, 2025

2025
[22]

S. R. Livingstone and F. A. Russo, “The Ryerson audio-visual database of emotional speech and song (RA VDESS): A dynamic, multimodal set of facial and vocal expressions in North American English, 2018

2018
[23]

An analysis of large speech models-based representations for speech emotion recogni- tion,

A. B. St ˆanea, V . Strilet,chi, C. Strilet,chi, and A. Stan, “An analysis of large speech models-based representations for speech emotion recogni- tion,” inProc. 2023 International Conference on Speech Technology and Human-Computer Dialogue (SpeD), 2023, pp. 100–104

2023

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Cross-modal fusion techniques for utterance-level emotion recognition from text and speech,

J. Luo, H. Phan, and J. D. Reiss, “Cross-modal fusion techniques for utterance-level emotion recognition from text and speech,” in *Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust. Speech Signal Process.* (ICASSP), 2023

work page 2023

[2] [2]

Artificial intelligence-driven customer service: Enhancing personalization, loyalty, and customer satisfaction,

D. Patil, “Artificial intelligence-driven customer service: Enhancing personalization, loyalty, and customer satisfaction,” *SSRN*, Nov. 20, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5057432. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.5057432

work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.5057432 2024

[3] [3]

Speech emotion recognition via graph-based representations,

A. Pentari, G. Kafentzis, and M. Tsiknakis, “Speech emotion recognition via graph-based representations,” *Scientific Reports*, vol. 14, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-52989-2

work page doi:10.1038/s41598-024-52989-2 2024

[4] [4]

A review on speech emotion recog- nition: A survey, recent advances, challenges, and the influence of noise,

S. M. George and P. M. Ilyas, “A review on speech emotion recog- nition: A survey, recent advances, challenges, and the influence of noise,” *Neurocomputing*, vol. 568, Art. no. 127015, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2023.127015

work page arXiv 2024

[5] [5]

Survey on bimodal speech emotion recognition from acoustic and linguistic informa- tion fusion,

B. Tris Atmaja, A. Sasou, and M. Akagi, “Survey on bimodal speech emotion recognition from acoustic and linguistic informa- tion fusion,” *Speech Communication*, vol. 140, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.specom.2022.03.002

work page doi:10.1016/j.specom.2022.03.002 2022

[6] [6]

DST: Deformable Speech Transformer for emotion recognition,

W. Chen, X. Xing, X. Xu, J. Pang, and L. Du, “DST: Deformable Speech Transformer for emotion recognition,” in *Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP)*, 2023, pp. 1–5

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Temporal-frequency state space duality: An efficient paradigm for speech emotion recognition,

J. Zhao, F. Wang, K. Li, Y . Wei, S. Tang, S. Zhao, and X. Sun, “Temporal-frequency state space duality: An efficient paradigm for speech emotion recognition,” in *Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP)*, 2025, pp. 1–5

work page 2025

[8] [8]

DWFormer: Dy- namic Window transFormer for speech emotion recognition,

S. Chen, X. Xing, W. Zhang, W. Chen, and X. Xu, “DWFormer: Dy- namic Window transFormer for speech emotion recognition,” in *Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP)*, 2023, pp. 1–4

work page 2023