Papers
arxiv:2607.02904

Speaker-Aware Temporal Aggregation Strategies on Segment Representations for Depression Detection in Dyadic Interaction: A Benchmark Study

Published on Jul 3
· Submitted by
Anisha Pattanayak
on Jul 7
Authors:
,
,

Abstract

Temporal aggregation methods for speech-based depression detection show inconsistent performance across different backbones and training runs, highlighting the need for robust benchmarking criteria.

Speech-based depression detection compresses features from short audio segments into one speaker-level decision, a step called temporal aggregation rarely studied on its own. Most benchmarks fix a single self-supervised encoder and a single hand-picked layer, so a reported gain may reflect the pipeline rather than the aggregation method itself. We introduce DEPOOL, a controlled benchmark that compares six aggregation architectures with six frozen speech backbones on an English and a Mandarin depression corpus, where each configuration learns which backbone layers matter rather than fixing one by hand. Across the resulting 72-configuration grid, a third of configurations collapse into predicting a single class for every speaker, a failure tied to the backbone as much as to the method, and the architecture that is most stable in a single-seed run becomes unreliable when training repeats across seeds. Robustness to backbone and seed, rather than average accuracy across a single pipeline, should be a first-class benchmarking criterion for temporal aggregation in clinical speech.

Community

Paper author Paper submitter

Depression detection from speech usually squashes many short audio clips into one decision per speaker (temporal aggregation), but this step almost never gets studied on its own since most benchmarks lock in one encoder and one layer. That makes it hard to know if reported gains are from the aggregation method or just the pipeline setup. We built DEPOOL to test this properly: 6 aggregation methods x 6 frozen speech backbones on English + Mandarin depression datasets, where each setup learns which layers actually matter instead of hand-picking one. Result: across all 72 configs, a third just collapse and predict one class for everyone (backbone-dependent, not just method-dependent), and the architecture that looks most stable in a single run often falls apart across different seeds. Bottom line: robustness across backbones and seeds matters way more than average accuracy on one fixed pipeline when benchmarking aggregation for clinical speech.

Sign up or log in to comment

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2607.02904
Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2607.02904 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2607.02904 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2607.02904 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.