Critical analyses of emotion recognition technology have raised ethical concerns around task validity and potential downstream impacts, urging researchers to ensure alignment between their stated motivations and practice. However, these discussions have not adequately influenced or drawn from research on speech emotion recognition (SER). We address this gap by conducting a systematic survey of SER research to uncover what stated motivations drive this work and if they align with the datasets and emotions studied. We find that while SER research identifies appealing goals, such as well-situated voice-activated systems or healthcare applications, commonly-used datasets do not reflect these proposed deployment contexts, thus presenting a gap between motivations and research practices. We argue that such gaps engender ethical concerns, and that SER research should reassert itself with concrete use-cases to prevent misinterpretations, misuse, and downstream harms.
Explainable and trustworthy speech emotion recognition (SER) remains a challenging task to date, largely due to the scarcity of SER data with reliable speech emotion descriptor (SED) labels, such as prosodic features and speaker traits. This paper presents a confidence score and reinforcement learning (RL) based on-the-fly SED rectification approach for post-training SER systems on automatically annotated SED labels. Experiments on IEMOCAP and MELD suggest that explainable SER systems incorporating the proposed confidence score and RL-based SED rectification approach consistently outperform baselines without data selection or SED rectification. The best performing system, which integrates both components, surpasses the baseline without data selection and SED rectification, achieving SER gains of 2.9% and 3.3% absolute (3.7% and 5.4% relative) on IEMOCAP and MELD benchmarks, respectively.
Detecting emotions is necessary for building systems that can accurately and adaptively interact with humans. Speech Emotion Recognition (SER) has become an important research focus to develop intelligent spoken interfaces. However, most studies predict emotions at the utterance level, ignoring the conversational context, along with the emotional flow and speaker interactions it carries. In this paper, we introduce ACERT (Averaged Contextual Emotion Representation through Time), a module that integrates a flexible-length window of conversational context to better capture emotional evolution in spoken interactions. To evaluate the robustness of this method, we conducted experiments on datasets spanning diverse emotionally expressive styles and contexts. ACERT outperforms current state-of-the-art (SOTA) approaches on IEMOCAP, establishes the first context-aware benchmark on SAFE, and obtains strong results on MELD for unweighted, class-balanced metrics. Ablation studies show that ACERT's gains come from emotional and conversational continuity, rather than from speaker identity or acoustic conditions.
Arthur Peuvot, Romaric Besançon, Gaël de Chalendar +2
Speech technologies are deployed in high-stakes settings, yet fairness concerns remain fragmented across tasks and disciplines. Existing surveys either adopt a general machine-learning perspective that overlooks speech-specific properties or focus on a single task, missing failure patterns shared across the speech domain. Synthesizing over 400 studies spanning generation and perception tasks and emerging speech-language models, this survey presents a unified framework that links formal fairness definitions to evaluation, diagnosis, and mitigation. We formalize seven fairness definitions adapted to the speech modality and organize the field's conceptual evolution through three paradigms: Robustness, Representation, and Governance. We then ground evaluation metrics in the mathematical cores of these definitions and offer a decision tree for metric selection. We diagnose bias sources along the speech processing pipeline, surfacing speech-specific mechanisms such as channel bias as a demographic proxy and annotation subjectivity in emotion labels. We systematize mitigation strategies across four intervention stages, mapping each to the diagnosed sources. Finally, we identify open challenges and propose directions for future research.