VoxEmo: Benchmarking Speech Emotion Recognition with Speech LLMs
Authors: Hezhao Zhang, Huang-Cheng Chou, Shrikanth Narayanan, Thomas Hain
Organizations: Department of Computer Science, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom · Signal Analysis and Interpretation Laboratory (SAIL), Ming Hsieh Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA
Speech Large Language Models (LLMs) show great promise for speech emotion recognition (SER) via generative interfaces. However, shifting from closed-set classification to open text generation introduces zero-shot stochasticity, making evaluation highly sensitive to prompts. Additionally, conventional speech LLMs benchmarks overlook the inherent ambiguity of human emotion. Hence, we present VoxEmo, a comprehensive SER benchmark encompassing 35 emotion corpora across 15 languages for Speech LLMs. VoxEmo provides a standardized toolkit featuring varying prompt complexities, from direct classification to paralinguistic reasoning. To reflect real-world perception/application, we introduce a distribution-aware soft-label protocol and a prompt-ensemble strategy that emulates annotator disagreement. Experiments reveal that while zero-shot speech LLMs trail supervised baselines in hard-label accuracy, they uniquely align with human subjective distributions.
Figures & tables
Dataset
Year
Aud. S.
Lab. S.
#Emos
#Spks
Selected #Utts
#Hrs
Langage
In-the-wild
EmotionTalk [ 25 ]
2025
Talkshow
Perc
7
30
19,250
23.6
Mandarin
MSP-Podcast [ 19 , 18 ]
2025
Podcast
Perc
8
3,711
212,801
324.1
English
BIIC-Podcast [ 26 ]
2023
Podcast
Perc
8
–
69,874
147.2
Taiwanese Mandarin
M3ED [ 27 ]
2022
TV
Perc
7
634
24,437
9.8
Mandarin
ASVP-ESD [ 28 ]
2020
Online media
Perc
14
132
13,964
18.0
English/Mandarin
Table 1: Dataset overview, grouped by acted vs in-the-wild recordings and sorted by year. Audio source ( Aud. S. ) reports recording origin for in-the-wild corpora, and scripted, spontaneous, mixed ( Script/Spont ) style for acted corpora. Label source indicates available label sources ( Lab. S. ): Expr (expressed/actor-intended), Perc (perceived/listener-annotator). Emo, #Utts, and #Hrs reflect the benchmark subset after dataset-specific filtering and label-set restriction (e.g., excluding no-agreement samples in MSP-Podcast and using a commonly adopted label subset for IEMOCAP).
Qwen2-Audio
Audio Flamingo 3
Audio encoder
Whisper-large-v3
Whisper-large-v3
LLM backbone
Qwen-7B
Qwen2.5-7B
Training data
370k hrs, undisclosed
> 9M QA pairs, released
IEMOCAP WA (%)
59.2
63.8
Table 2: Comparison of the two evaluated speech LLMs.
Zero-shot Prompt Template
Task description
You are a speech emotion recognition system. You are given an audio clip.
Emotion categories
Hard-label prompts: Choose exactly one emotion label from this closed set: {labels} . Distribution prompt: Consider the following emotion labels: {labels} .
Instruction blocks
+ Direct decision
Decide the emotion directly from the audio.
+ Distribution
Estimate how likely each emotion is based on the audio. Assign a probability (between 0.0 and 1.0) to every label. The probabilities must sum to 1.0. Also state which single label is most likely.
+ ASR transcript
Transcribe the spoken content from the audio as accurately as possible.
Table 3: Zero-shot prompt template used in VoxEmo. Prompt families are formed by adding instruction blocks to the shared template. For hard-label evaluation, FINAL_LABEL is parsed as the prediction.
Setting
UA(%)
WA(%)
F1(%)
UA(%)
WA(%)
F1(%)
UA(%)
WA(%)
F1(%)
UA(%)
WA(%)
F1(%)
AESDD (el, 5)
ASED (am, 5)
ASVP-ESD (en/zh, 14)
BIIC-Podcast (zh-tw, 8)
Q2A Direct
28.57
28.19
20.06
35.93
35.39
32.74
11.28
16.61
9.91
27.73
29.85
18.34
Q2A +T
28.18
28.19
27.08
24.59
25
18.34
7.84
11.27
10.38
\textcolor red!8528.66
\textcolor red!8533.7
\textcolor red!8519.96
Q2A +A
\textcolor red!8539.52
\textcolor red!8539.6
\textcolor red!8538.63
\textcolor red!8541.41
\textcolor red!8542.21
\textcolor red!8539.02
\textcolor red!8520.86
\textcolor red!8524.55
\textcolor red!8518.4
21.59
39.35
16.55
Q2A +T+A
27.38
27.52
24.67
29.11
29.87
25.16
9.45
12.47
10.17
20.51
36.98
15.29
Q2A +T+A+R
26.92
26.85
25.77
30.5
31.17
26.81
14.94
21.08
15.47
24.3
40.03
18.08
Table 4: VoxEmo zero-shot + SFT results. Q2A = Qwen2-Audio, AF3 = Audio Flamingo 3. Prompt abbreviations: T = ASR transcript, A = acoustic caption, R = reasoning. \textcolor red!85Bold red : best Q2A prompt per dataset; \textcolor red!85bold red : best AF3 prompt per dataset. \textcolor red!85Bold red : best score among Q2A SFT / AF3 SFT / EmoBox (by Macro-F1) per dataset. Part 1/2.
Setting
UA(%)
WA(%)
F1(%)
UA(%)
WA(%)
F1(%)
UA(%)
WA(%)
F1(%)
UA(%)
WA(%)
F1(%)
Oreau (fr, 7)
PAVOQUE (de, 5)
Polish (pl, 3)
RAVDESS (en, 8)
Q2A Direct
46.22
47.12
39.85
\textcolor red!8547.56
\textcolor red!8562.77
\textcolor red!8546.09
34.89
34.89
21.97
\textcolor red!8572.4
\textcolor red!8572.43
\textcolor red!8567.55
Q2A +T
39.84
41.35
37.53
27.72
53
29.07
34
34
27.91
49.15
45.76
44.54
Q2A +A
33.12
35.58
25.72
45.23
67.52
45.27
\textcolor red!8534.67
\textcolor red!8534.67
\textcolor red!8530.14
68.29
66.39
62.73
Q2A +T+A
41.89
44.23
41.82
31.14
59.61
33.85
35.11
35.11
25.8
49.8
47.01
48.57
Q2A +T+A+R
\textcolor red!8545.52
\textcolor red!8548.08
\textcolor red!8546.17
34.54
60.26
36.3
34.44
34.44
27.34
45.12
44.93
44
Table 5: VoxEmo zero-shot + SFT results. Q2A = Qwen2-Audio, AF3 = Audio Flamingo 3. Prompt abbreviations: T = ASR transcript, A = acoustic caption, R = reasoning. \textcolor red!85Bold red : best Q2A prompt per dataset; \textcolor red!85bold red : best AF3 prompt per dataset. \textcolor red!85Bold red : best score among Q2A SFT / AF3 SFT / EmoBox [ 13 ] (by MacroF1) per dataset. Part 2/2.
Dataset
Model
Prompt
Hard-decision Assessment
Distribution-aware Assessment
Ma-F1 ↑
Mi-F1 ↑
Acc ↑
KLD ↓
JSD ↓
TVD ↓
SIM ↑
MSE ↓
BIIC-Podcast (zh-tw, 8)
Q2A
Direct
28.14
42.16
29.57
5.473
0.363
0.657
49.61
0.074
+A
4.79
9.38
9.67
\textcolor red!852.440
0.402
0.749
45.78
0.073
Ensemble
\textcolor red!8531.12
\textcolor red!8551.14
\textcolor red!8542.95
7.257
\textcolor red!850.309
\textcolor red!850.559
\textcolor red!8556.49
\textcolor red!850.070
AF3
Direct
15.57
25.70
22.95
4.767
0.374
0.680
46.97
0.083
+A
16.88
42.70
38.11
10.391
0.358
0.616
48.96
0.101
Table 6: Zero-shot soft-label evaluation results. We compare the single direct prompt ( Direct ), +A prompt, against the proposed prompt ensemble method ( Ensemble ). Performance is categorized into hard-decision metrics (Macro-F1, Micro-F1, and Top-1 Accuracy in %) and distribution-aware assessments , including Kullback–Leibler Divergence (KLD), Jensen–Shannon Divergence (JSD), Total Variation Distance (TVD), Cosine Similarity (Sim ×100 ), and Mean Squared Error (MSE). \textcolor red!85Bold red denotes the superior setting per corpus. ↑ ( ↓ ) indicates that higher (lower) values are better.
Figure 1: Impact of zero-shot prompt complexity on performance and format adherence. The blue bars (left axis) denote the Average Macro-F1 across five evaluation corpora, while the red line (right axis) illustrates the Average Parse Failure Rate. As prompt constraints increase (from direct classification Direct to requesting intermediate acoustic captions +T ), both Q2A and AF3 struggle to follow the structured text-output format, leading to a severe degradation in overall predictive performance. This zero-shot stochasticity necessitates our proposed distribution-aware prompt ensemble methodology.
Dataset
Model / Framework
Ma-F1
BIIC-Podcast (zh-tw, 8)
[ 64 ]
35.5
[ 6 ]
28.3
This paper (Q2A-Ensemble)
31.1
This paper (AF3-Ensemble)
21.0
CREMA-D (en, 6)
[ 21 ]
71.0
[ 64 ]
70.6
Table 7: Comparison of best zero-shot speech LLMs against recent fully supervised state-of-the-art benchmarks on Hard-label Macro-F1 (%).
Source \ Target
CREMA-D
IEMOCAP
MELD
MSP-Podcast 2
Qwen2-Audio
CREMA-D
91.1 (+21.7)
79.9 (+20.5)
30.7 (+2.6)
25.8 (+5.5)
IEMOCAP
76.8 (+7.4)
82.4 (+23.0)
24.7 (-3.4)
31.5 (+11.1)
MELD
86.6 (+17.1)
81.6 (+22.2)
39.3 (+11.2)
34.1 (+13.7)
MSP-Podcast 2
78.6 (+9.1)
68.1 (+8.7)
30.8 (+2.8)
29.2 (+8.8)
AudioFlamingo-3
Table 8: Cross-scenario transfer (Macro-F1). Each cell shows the score when fine-tuning on the source (row) and evaluating on the target (column), with Δ over best zero-shot in parentheses. Diagonal ( bold ): in-domain SFT. MSP-Podcast uses test1.
Speech emotion recognition (SER) is the task of assigning emotion labels to utterances. Early systems relied on acoustic features, whereas recent approaches combine multiple modalities, most commonly speech and text. Still, performance remains poor on many datasets. Large language models (LLMs) have therefore attracted interest for SER, as they can process diverse inputs jointly with instructions. However, direct audio input raises questions of explainability. To address similar questions in image classification, concept bottleneck models were introduced. This work adapts concept bottlenecks to SER to examine how individual predictions depend on transcripts, acoustic descriptions and speaker attributes. Experiments test three LLMs on CREMA-D, IEMOCAP and MELD, with concepts extracted by separate tools. On scripted corpora, LLMs are strongly biased towards the transcript in the zero-shot setting, which lowers Macro-F1 from 27.8 to 5.8 on CREMA-D. Fine-tuning removes this bias, and the transcript raises Macro-F1 from 41.8 to 45.1. Removing speech rate changes 48% of Neutral predictions to Disgust on CREMA-D; removing intensity level on MELD changes predictions despite little change in Macro-F1. These findings show that aggregate performance changes alone do not capture the effects of concept removal on individual predictions.
Hezhao Zhang, Thomas Hain
School of Computer Science, University of Sheffield Sheffield, United Kingdom
Evaluating emotion preservation in expressive speech generation involves assessing how closely generated speech matches a reference in emotion. Human listening tests assess this similarity, but their cost motivates automatic measures aligned with human judgments. To support the development and evaluation of such measures, we introduce SES-Bench, a speech emotion similarity benchmark built from human comparisons of two candidate utterances against a shared reference. These comparisons record which candidate listeners find emotionally closer to the reference and the strength of their preference. Using these annotations, we train SES-Judge to score emotion similarity between two utterances. SES-Judge significantly outperforms embedding cosine similarity and prompted large audio-language models in preference accuracy and correlation with human ratings that capture both preference direction and strength.
Yun-Shao Tsai, Yi-Cheng Lin, Chih-Kai Yang +7
Graduate Institute of Communication Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taiwan · Independent Researcher · National Taiwan University, Taiwan +2
SpeechLLMs have shown strong potential for emotion recognition, yet they read the predicted emotion off a generative decoder not suited for classification: it can emit labels outside the target set and favors frequent classes. We propose a discriminative adaptation that reads the final prompt token's hidden state through a classification head, producing a label in one forward pass without modifying the backbone. Because this readout starts from the hidden state the model would otherwise decode, it gives a controlled comparison of generative and discriminative inference in an otherwise identical speechLLM. We keep the head a single linear layer, trading little accuracy for interpretability: each emotion becomes one direction in the LLM output token space, revealing associated tokens. On IEMOCAP, across two speechLLM architectures, it improves Macro F1 and removes hallucinations, with largest gains on realistic ASR transcripts. Our analysis reveals that these emotion directions encode indirect associations mirroring biases in web-scale text.