arXiv:2606. 27717v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Prosodic emphasis varies across languages, emotions, and speaking styles, yet existing emphasis detection models are largely trained and evaluated on monolingual neutral read speech.
arXiv:2608.29613v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Function vectors (FVs) have recently emerged as a promising mechanism for steering the behavior of large language models (LLMs) by injecting task-spe...
This paper investigates whether prosodic features—pitch, energy, and timing—are preserved when speech is translated between languages. Using multilingual dubbing data for English‑German, English‑Spanish, and English‑French pairs, the authors conduct a fine‑grained cross‑lingual analysis to quantify similarities and differences in prosody. The study identifies inherent cross‑lingual correlations in prosodic structure and explores how linguistic and alignment factors influence these patterns.
arXiv:2609.39453v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Speech emotion recognition (SER) is the task of assigning emotion labels to utterances. Early systems relied on acoustic features, whereas recent app...
arXiv:2601. 03888v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: In prior work, we introduced IndexTTS 2, a zero-shot neural text-to-speech foundation model comprising two core components: a transformer-based Text-to-Semantic (T2S) module and a non-autoregressive Semantic-to-Mel (S2M) module, which together enable faithful emotion replication and establish the first autoregressive duration-controllable generative paradigm.
arXiv:2609.22697v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recently, text-to-speech systems have made significant progress in speech expressiveness and controllability. However, the speaking style of generated...
State-of-the-art speech datasets predominantly focus on widely spoken languages, often overlooking low-resource languages such as Luxembourgish, which remain underrepresented in speech technology research. In this work, we introduce LuxEmo, a 21-hour conversational expressive speech corpus for Luxembourgish with 4 emotion categories.
arXiv:2606.28249v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Recently, Large Language Model (LLM)-based Text-to-Speech (TTS) models have achieved remarkable naturalness. However, the standard Supervised...
arXiv:2609.14570v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-agent LLM systems combine multiple inference calls, but prior work often confounds how calls are connected with how they are diversified. We st...
The paper introduces ACERT, a module that incorporates a flexible-length window of conversational context to enhance Speech Emotion Recognition (SER). By capturing emotional evolution across utterances, ACERT outperforms state‑of‑the‑art methods on IEMOCAP, sets a new context‑aware benchmark on SAFE, and achieves strong results on MELD. Ablation studies attribute ACERT’s improvements to emotional and conversational continuity rather than speaker identity or acoustic conditions.
arXiv:2607. 06611v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automatically recognizing the sentiment, positive or negative, from speech is a challenging task, requiring both the analysis of vocal inflections and the interpretation of uttered words.
The paper introduces a discriminative adaptation for SpeechLLMs that reads the hidden state of the final prompt token via a simple classification head, enabling emotion recognition in a single forward pass without altering the backbone. This approach replaces the generative decoder, which can produce out‑of‑set labels and favor frequent classes, with a controlled comparison between generative and discriminative inference. Experiments on IEMOCAP show improved Macro F1 scores, elimination of hallucinations, and larger gains on realistic ASR transcripts, while revealing that emotion directions encode indirect associations reflecting web‑scale text biases.
The study examines how emotions are represented across layers of large language models (LLMs) by probing eight 1B–9B open‑weight models on three datasets (Twitter, Reddit, autobiographical narratives). It finds that the optimal probing layer varies systematically with the dataset, moving from near‑input layers to deeper layers, and that targeted forward‑pass interventions on these layers degrade performance more than random interventions. Additionally, the selected layers transfer across datasets and emotion categories, and early‑exit representations from these layers outperform full‑depth exits by an average of 6.9 percentage points.