The Nortel Speech Server (formerly known as Periphonics Speech Processing Platform) in telecommunications is a speech processing system that was originally developed by Nortel. Following the bankruptcy of Nortel, it is now sold by Avaya. The system is primarily used for large vocabulary speech recognition, natural language understanding, text-to-speech, and speaker verification. The Nortel Speech Server was based on the Periphonics OSCAR platform. The original OSCAR Platform was based upon Solaris servers. The current range of Speech Servers is Windows based. Nortel Speech Server is a component of the MPS 500, MPS 1000, and ICP platforms. On MPS systems, it may be used to stream prerecorded audio.
Description logic
Description logics (DL) are a family of formal knowledge representation languages. Many DLs are more expressive than propositional logic but less expressive than first-order logic. In contrast to the latter, the core reasoning problems for DLs are (usually) decidable, and efficient decision procedures have been designed and implemented for these problems. There are general, spatial, temporal, spatiotemporal, and fuzzy description logics, and each description logic features a different balance between expressive power and reasoning complexity by supporting different sets of mathematical constructors. DLs are used in artificial intelligence to describe and reason about the relevant concepts of an application domain (known as terminological knowledge). It is of particular importance in providing a logical formalism for ontologies and the Semantic Web: the Web Ontology Language (OWL) and its profiles are based on DLs. A major area of application of DLs and OWL is in biomedical informatics, where they assist in the codification of biomedical knowledge. DLs and OWL are also applied in other domains, including defense, climate modeling, and large-scale industrial knowledge graphs. == Introduction == A DL models concepts, roles and individuals, and their relationships. The fundamental modeling concept of a DL is the axiom—a logical statement relating roles and/or concepts. This is a key difference from the frames paradigm where a frame specification declares and completely defines a class. == Nomenclature == === Terminology compared to FOL and OWL === The description logic community uses different terminology than the first-order logic (FOL) community for operationally equivalent notions; some examples are given below. The Web Ontology Language (OWL) uses again a different terminology, also given in the table below. === Naming convention === There are many varieties of description logics and there is an informal naming convention, roughly describing the operators allowed. The expressivity is encoded in the label for a logic starting with one of the following basic logics: Followed by any of the following extensions: ==== Exceptions ==== Some canonical DLs that do not exactly fit this convention are: ==== Examples ==== As an example, A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} is a centrally important description logic from which comparisons with other varieties can be made. A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} is simply A L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {AL}}} with complement of any concept allowed, not just atomic concepts. A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} is used instead of the equivalent A L U E {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALUE}}} . A further example, the description logic S H I Q {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIQ}}} is the logic A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} plus extended cardinality restrictions, and transitive and inverse roles. The naming conventions aren't purely systematic so that the logic A L C O I N {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALCOIN}}} might be referred to as A L C N I O {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALCNIO}}} and other abbreviations are also made where possible. The Protégé ontology editor supports S H O I N ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHOIN}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} . Three major biomedical informatics terminology bases, SNOMED CT, GALEN, and GO, are expressible in E L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {EL}}} (with additional role properties). OWL 2 provides the expressiveness of S R O I Q ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SROIQ}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} , OWL-DL is based on S H O I N ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHOIN}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} , and for OWL-Lite it is S H I F ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIF}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} . == History == Description logic was given its current name in the 1980s. Previous to this it was called (chronologically): terminological systems, and concept languages. === Knowledge representation === Frames and semantic networks lack formal (logic-based) semantics. DL was first introduced into knowledge representation (KR) systems to overcome this deficiency. The first DL-based KR system was KL-ONE (by Ronald J. Brachman and Schmolze, 1985). During the '80s other DL-based systems using structural subsumption algorithms were developed including KRYPTON (1983), LOOM (1987), BACK (1988), K-REP (1991) and CLASSIC (1991). This approach featured DL with limited expressiveness but relatively efficient (polynomial time) reasoning. In the early '90s, the introduction of a new tableau based algorithm paradigm allowed efficient reasoning on more expressive DL. DL-based systems using these algorithms — such as KRIS (1991) — show acceptable reasoning performance on typical inference problems even though the worst case complexity is no longer polynomial. From the mid '90s, reasoners were created with good practical performance on very expressive DL with high worst case complexity. Examples from this period include FaCT, RACER (2001), CEL (2005), and KAON 2 (2005). DL reasoners, such as FaCT, FaCT++, RACER, DLP and Pellet, implement the method of analytic tableaux. KAON2 is implemented by algorithms which reduce a SHIQ(D) knowledge base to a disjunctive datalog program. === Semantic web === The DARPA Agent Markup Language (DAML) and Ontology Inference Layer (OIL) ontology languages for the Semantic Web can be viewed as syntactic variants of DL. In particular, the formal semantics and reasoning in OIL use the S H I Q {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIQ}}} DL. The DAML+OIL DL was developed as a submission to—and formed the starting point of—the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Ontology Working Group. In 2004, the Web Ontology Working Group completed its work by issuing the OWL recommendation. The design of OWL is based on the S H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SH}}} family of DL with OWL DL and OWL Lite based on S H O I N ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHOIN}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} and S H I F ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIF}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} respectively. The W3C OWL Working Group began work in 2007 on a refinement of - and extension to - OWL. In 2009, this was completed by the issuance of the OWL2 recommendation. OWL2 is based on the description logic S R O I Q ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SROIQ}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} . Practical experience demonstrated that OWL DL lacked several key features necessary to model complex domains. == Modeling == === TBox vs Abox === In DL, a distinction is drawn between the so-called TBox (terminological box) and the ABox (assertional box). In general, the TBox contains sentences describing concept hierarchies (i.e., relations between concepts) while the ABox contains ground sentences stating where in the hierarchy, individuals belong (i.e., relations between individuals and concepts). For example, the statement: belongs in the TBox, while the statement: belongs in the ABox. Note that the TBox/ABox distinction is not significant, in the same sense that the two "kinds" of sentences are not treated differently in first-order logic (which subsumes most DL). When translated into first-order logic, a subsumption axiom like (1) is simply a conditional restriction to unary predicates (concepts) with only variables appearing in it. Clearly, a sentence of this form is not privileged or special over sentences in which only constants ("grounded" values) appear like (2). === Motivation for having Tbox and Abox === So why was the distinction introduced? The primary reason is that the separation can be useful when describing and formulating decision-procedures for various DL. For example, a reasoner might process the TBox and ABox separately, in part because certain key inference problems are tied to one but not the other one ('classification' is related to the TBox, 'instance checking' to the ABox). Another example is that the complexity of the TBox can greatly affect the performance of a given decision-procedure for a certain DL, independently of the ABox. Thus, it is useful to have a way to talk about that specific part of the knowledge base. The secondary reason is that the distinction can make sense from the knowledge base modeler's perspective. It is plausible to distinguish between our conception of terms/concepts in the world (class axioms in the TBox) and particular manifestations of those terms/concepts (instance assertions in the ABox). In the above example: when the hierarchy within a company is the same in every branch but the assignment to employees is different in every department (because there are other people working there), it makes sense to reuse the TBox for different branches that do not use the same ABox. There are two features of description logic that are not shared by most other data description formalisms: DL does not make the unique name assumption (UNA) or the closed-world assumption (CWA). Not having UNA means that two concepts with different names may be allowed by some inference to be shown to be equivalent. Not having CWA, or rather having the open world assumption (OWA) means that
Investigative Data Warehouse
Investigative Data Warehouse (IDW) is a searchable database operated by the FBI. It was created in 2004. Much of the nature and scope of the database is classified. The database is a centralization of multiple federal and state databases, including criminal records from various law enforcement agencies, the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), and public records databases. According to Michael Morehart's testimony before the House Committee on Financial Services in 2006, the "IDW is a centralized, web-enabled, closed system repository for intelligence and investigative data. This system, maintained by the FBI, allows appropriately trained and authorized personnel throughout the country to query for information of relevance to investigative and intelligence matters." == Overview == In 2004, according to a government solicitation for bids to manage the project, it was approximately 10TB in size. In 2005, according to one FBI official, the IDW contained approximately 100 million documents. In 2006 it contained more than 560 million documents and was accessible by more than 12,000 individuals. According to the FBI's website, as of August 22, 2007, the database contained 700 million records from 53 databases and was accessible by 13,000 individuals around the world. As of 2007, the FBI was the subject of a lawsuit brought by the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) because of a lack of public notice describing the database and the criteria for including personal information, as required by the Privacy Act of 1974. The lawsuits were a result of two Freedom of Information Act requests filed by the EFF in 2006. It was built in part by Chiliad corporation, the FBI Office of the Chief Technology Officer, and others. Companies listed on the FOIA files include Northrop Grumman . == Purpose == Investigative Data Warehouse–Secret (IDW-S) "provides data and data processing/analysis services to FBI agents and analysts as they perform counter-terrorism, counter-intelligence, and law enforcement missions". The core subsystem supports the Counter-Terrorism Division (CTD), the Special Event Unit, and via DOCLAB-S, the Joint Intelligence Committee Investigation (JICI) and IntelPlus. According to a 2005 email, "IDW will also be used for criminal and other authorized non-CT investigations as it evolves." (CT being counter terrorism) == Subsystems == Within the system, there were subsystems named IDW-S Core, SPT, and DOCLAB-S The special projects team (SPT): allows for the rapid import of new specialized data sources. These data sources are not made available to the general IDW users but instead are provided to a small group of users who have a demonstrated "need-to-know". The SPT System is similar in function to the IDW-S system, with the main difference is a different set of data sources. The SPT System allows its users to access not only the standard IDW Data Store but the specialized SPT Data Store. == Privacy == According to internal emails, the FBI performed several Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) of the IDW system. They worked with lawyers from their National Security Law Branch (NSLB) to attempt to make sure their system was complying with various laws regarding sharing of information and secrecy (for example, rule 6e of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, regarding the secrecy of Grand Jury material ). The Information Sharing Policy Group (ISPG) formed a Discretionary Access Control Team (DACT), to work on "approval of data sets" and "access control requirements" for IDW and DataMart, and responding to other Intelligence Community agencies requesting access. The EFF FOIA IDW website states "Despite the vast amount of personal information contained in the IDW, the FBI has never published a Privacy Act notice describing the system or explaining the ways in which the records might be used." There was also a 2005 email from someone on the Office of General Council (OGC) about "preliminary staff musings that maybe we should limit FBI PIA requirements to non-NS systems" (NS being National Security). There was also an email from 2006 saying that 'national security systems are exempt from E-Gov', apparently referring to the E-Government Act of 2002, which has a section that deals with privacy. == Data sources == The IDW used many data sources. The FOIA documents from EFF are heavily redacted, but some of the sources are as follows: FBI Automated Case Support system (ACS), subset of the Electronic Case File (ECF) system Joint Intelligence Committee Investigation documents (JICI), with OCR text "Open Source News" (public websites, such as the Washington Post and others) Secure Automated Messaging Network (SAMNet) Violent Gang and Terrorist Organizing File (VGTOF) DARPA TIDES program ('open source news' that has been organized and collected) IntelPlus Filerooms, with OCR text FBI National Crime Information Center (NCIC) FBI Records Management Division (RMD), Document Laboratory (DocLab), FBIHQ MiTAP (collects data from public sources, websites, etc.) SPT-Specific data sources (partial list, FOIA files have large parts redacted): Unified Name Index (UNI) extracts Financial Center (FinCen), including Bank Secrecy Act data "Various Sources", including the Transportation Security Administration FBI Counterterrorism Division (CTD) Telephone numbers / addresses from ACS Case data from ACS Terrorist Watch List (TWL) "Other NJTTF data" DoS ... Lost/Stolen Passport data No Fly List, from TSA Selectee list, from TSA ACS/ECF with some case types excluded CIA non-TS/non-SCI Technical Discussions (TDs) and Intelligence Information Reports (IIRs) from 1978 to the May 2004 There was also talk of linking the FTTTF "Data Mart" with IDW. The data in IDW is classified at the 'Secret' level or lower. Higher classifications are not allowed, and can be removed
Universal Data Element Framework
The Universal Data Element Framework (UDEF) was a controlled vocabulary developed by The Open Group. It provided a framework for categorizing, naming, and indexing data. It assigned to every item of data a structured alphanumeric tag plus a controlled vocabulary name that describes the meaning of the data. This allowed relating data elements to similar elements defined by other organizations. UDEF defined a Dewey-decimal like code for each concept. For example, an "employee number" is often used in human resource management. It has a UDEF tag a.5_12.35.8 and a controlled vocabulary description "Employee.PERSON_Employer.Assigned.IDENTIFIER". UDEF has been superseded by the Open Data Element Framework (ODEF). == Examples == In an application used by a hospital, the last name and first name of several people could include the following example concepts: Patient Person Family Name – find the word “Patient” under the UDEF object “Person” and find the word “Family” under the UDEF property “Name” Patient Person Given Name – find the word “Patient” under the UDEF object “Person” and find the word “Given” under the UDEF property “Name” Doctor Person Family Name – find the word “Doctor” under the UDEF object “Person” and find the word “Family” under the UDEF property “Name” Doctor Person Given Name – find the word “Doctor” under the UDEF object “Person” and find the word “Given” under the UDEF property “Name” For the examples above, the following UDEF IDs are available: “Patient Person Family Name” the UDEF ID is “au.5_11.10” “Patient Person Given Name” the UDEF ID is “au.5_12.10” “Doctor Person Family Name” the UDEF ID is “aq.5_11.10” “Doctor Person Given Name” the UDEF ID is “aq.5_12.10”
List of information schools
This list of information schools, sometimes abbreviated to iSchools, includes members of the iSchools organization. The iSchools organization reflects a consortium of over 130 information schools across the globe. == History == The first iSchools Caucus was formed in 1988 by Syracuse, Pittsburgh, and Drexel and was called the Gang of Three (sometimes gang of four with Rutgers). Syracuse renamed the School of Library Science as the School of Information Studies in 1974, and is considered as the first “iSchool” in history. The group was formally named "the iSchools Caucus" or more casually, the iCaucus. By 2003, the group expanded to include the Universities of Michigan, Washington, Illinois, UNC, Florida State, Indiana, and Texas, and was called the Gang of Ten. The current iSchools Caucus organization was formalized by 2005, with additions of UC Berkeley, UC Irvine, UCLA, Penn State, Georgia Tech, Maryland, Toronto, Carnegie Mellon and Singapore Management University. == iSchools organization == The iSchools promote an interdisciplinary approach to understanding the opportunities and challenges of information management, with a core commitment to concepts like universal access and user-centered organization of information. The field is concerned broadly with questions of design and preservation across information spaces, from digital and virtual spaces such as online communities, social networking, the World Wide Web, and databases to physical spaces such as libraries, museums, collections, and other repositories. "School of Information", "Department of Information Studies", or "Information Department" are often the names of the participating organizations. Degree programs at iSchools include course offerings in areas such as information architecture, design, policy, and economics; knowledge management, user experience design, and usability; preservation and conservation; librarianship and library administration; the sociology of information; and human-computer interaction and computer science. === Leadership === The executive committee of the iSchools is made up of the current chair (Ina Fourie, University of Pretoria, South Africa), past chair (Gillian Oliver, Monash University, Australia) and the chair elect (Javed Mostafa, University of Toronto Canada), plus representatives from the three regions (North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific). The current executive director is Slava Sterzer. == Member institutions == Between 2010 and 2026, the organization expanded globally beyond North America, growing to 133 member schools as of March 2026. For an updated and complete list of member schools, please visit the member database of the iSchools. == iConferences == Members of the iSchools organize a regular academic conference, known as the iConference, hosted by a different member institution each year. September 2005: Pennsylvania State University October 2006: University of Michigan February 2008: University of California, Los Angeles February 2009: University of North Carolina February 2010: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign February 2011: University of Washington, Seattle February 2012: University of Toronto February 2013: University of North Texas March 2014: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin March 2015: University of California, Irvine March 2016: Drexel University March 2017: Wuhan University March 2018: University of Sheffield and Northumbria University March 2019: University of Maryland March 2020: University of Borås (virtual only) March 2021: Renmin University of China (virtual only) February/March 2022: University of Texas at Austin, University College Dublin & Kyushu University (virtual only) March 2023: Universitat Oberta de Catalunya March 2024: Jilin University March 2025: Indiana University March/April 2026: Edinburgh Napier University 2027: Victoria University of Wellington == Other schools of information == Other information schools and programs include: Documentation Research and Training Centre, Indian Statistical Institute, Bangalore San Jose State University, School of Information University of Southern California Library Science Degree Ankara University, Department of Information and Records Management, Ankara/Turkey Marmara University, Department of Information and Records Management, Istanbul/Turkey University of Kelaniya, Department of Library and Information Science, Kelaniya/Sri Lanka University of Colombo, National Institute of Library and Information Science (NILIS), Colombo/Sri Lanka Chicago State University, Department of Information Studies
Robot learning
Robot learning is a research field at the intersection of machine learning and robotics. It studies techniques allowing a robot to acquire novel skills or adapt to its environment through learning algorithms. The embodiment of the robot, situated in a physical embedding, provides at the same time specific difficulties (e.g. high-dimensionality, real time constraints for collecting data and learning) and opportunities for guiding the learning process (e.g. sensorimotor synergies, motor primitives). Example of skills that are targeted by learning algorithms include sensorimotor skills such as locomotion, grasping, active object categorization, as well as interactive skills such as joint manipulation of an object with a human peer, and linguistic skills such as the grounded and situated meaning of human language. Learning can happen either through autonomous self-exploration or through guidance from a human teacher, like for example in robot learning by imitation. Robot learning can be closely related to adaptive control, reinforcement learning as well as developmental robotics which considers the problem of autonomous lifelong acquisition of repertoires of skills. While machine learning is frequently used by computer vision algorithms employed in the context of robotics, these applications are usually not referred to as "robot learning". == Imitation learning == Many research groups are developing techniques where robots learn by imitating. This includes various techniques for learning from demonstration (sometimes also referred to as "programming by demonstration") and observational learning. == Sharing learned skills and knowledge == In Tellex's "Million Object Challenge", the goal is robots that learn how to spot and handle simple items and upload their data to the cloud to allow other robots to analyze and use the information. RoboBrain is a knowledge engine for robots which can be freely accessed by any device wishing to carry out a task. The database gathers new information about tasks as robots perform them, by searching the Internet, interpreting natural language text, images, and videos, object recognition as well as interaction. The project is led by Ashutosh Saxena at Stanford University. RoboEarth is a project that has been described as a "World Wide Web for robots" − it is a network and database repository where robots can share information and learn from each other and a cloud for outsourcing heavy computation tasks. The project brings together researchers from five major universities in Germany, the Netherlands and Spain and is backed by the European Union. Google Research, DeepMind, and Google X have decided to allow their robots share their experiences. == Vision-language-action model == Research groups and companies are developing vision-language-action models, foundation models that allow robotic control through the combination of vision and language. Google DeepMind, Figure AI and Hugging Face are actively working on that.
Affective computing
Affective computing is the study and development of systems and devices that can recognize, interpret, process, and simulate human affects. It is an interdisciplinary field spanning computer science, psychology, and cognitive science. While some core ideas in the field may be traced as far back as to early philosophical inquiries into emotion, the modern idea originated with Rosalind Picard's 1995 paper entitled "Affective Computing" and her 1997 book of the same name published by MIT Press. One motivation for researching affective computing is the ability to give machines emotional intelligence, including simulating empathy. The goal is that a machine should interpret the emotional state of humans and adapt its behavior to those emotions, responding appropriately. Recent experimental research has shown that subtle affective haptic feedback can shape human reward learning and mobile interaction behavior, suggesting that affective computing systems may not only interpret emotional states but also actively modulate user actions through emotion-laden outputs. == Areas == === Detecting and recognizing emotional information === Detecting emotional information usually begins with passive sensors that capture data about the user's physical state or behavior without interpreting the input. The data gathered is analogous to the cues humans use to perceive emotions in others. For example, a video camera might capture facial expressions, body posture, and gestures, while a microphone might capture speech. Other sensors detect emotional cues by directly measuring physiological data, such as skin temperature and galvanic resistance. Recognizing emotional information requires the extraction of meaningful patterns from the gathered data. This is done using machine learning techniques that process different modalities, such as speech recognition, natural language processing, or facial expression detection. The goal of most of these techniques is to produce labels that would match the labels a human would give in the same situation. For example, if a person makes a facial expression furrowing their brow, then the computer vision system might be trained to label their face as appearing "confused" or as "concentrating" or "slightly negative" (as opposed to positive, which it might say if they were smiling in a happy-appearing way). This response is based on the data used to train the system. These labels may or may not correspond to what the person is actually feeling. === Emotion in machines === Another area within affective computing is the design of computational devices proposed to exhibit either innate emotional capabilities or that are capable of convincingly simulating emotions. A more practical approach, based on current technological capabilities, is the simulation of emotions in conversational agents in order to enrich and facilitate interactivity between human and machine. Marvin Minsky, one of the pioneering computer scientists in artificial intelligence, relates emotions to the broader issues of machine intelligence stating in The Emotion Machine that emotion is "not especially different from the processes that we call 'thinking.'" The innovative approach "digital humans" or virtual humans includes an attempt to give these programs, which simulate humans, an emotional dimension as well, including reactions, facial expressions, and gestures in accordance with the reaction that a real person would have in certain emotionally stimulating situations. Emotion in machines often refers to emotion in computational, often AI-based, systems. As a result, the terms 'emotional AI' is being used. Some modern large language models simulate emotions in their chats with humans. ChatGPT's simulated emotion leans more positive than that of most human responses. == Technologies == In psychology, cognitive science, and in neuroscience, there have been two main approaches for describing how humans perceive and classify emotion: continuous or categorical. The continuous approach tends to use dimensions such as negative vs. positive, calm vs. aroused. The categorical approach tends to use discrete classes such as happy, sad, angry, fearful, surprise, and disgust. Different kinds of machine learning regression and classification models are used for machines to produce continuous or discrete labels. Sometimes, models are also built that allow combinations across the categories (e.g. a happy-surprised face or a fearful-surprised face). The following sections consider many of the kinds of input data used for the task of emotion recognition. === Emotional speech === Various changes in the autonomic nervous system can indirectly alter a person's speech, and affective technologies can leverage this information to recognize emotion. For example, speech produced in a state of fear, anger, or joy becomes fast, loud, and precisely enunciated, with a higher and wider range in pitch, whereas emotions such as tiredness, boredom, or sadness tend to generate slow, low-pitched, and slurred speech. Some emotions have been found to be more easily computationally identified, such as anger or approval. Emotional speech processing technologies recognize the user's emotional state using computational analysis of speech features. Vocal parameters and prosodic features such as pitch variables and speech rate can be analyzed through pattern recognition techniques. Speech analysis is an effective method of identifying affective state, having an average reported accuracy of 70-80% in research from 2003 and 2006. These systems tend to outperform average human accuracy (approximately 60%) but are less accurate than systems which employ other modalities for emotion detection, such as physiological states or facial expressions. However, since many speech characteristics are independent of semantics or culture, this technique is considered to be a promising route for further research. ==== Algorithms ==== The process of speech/text affect detection requires the creation of a reliable database, knowledge base, or vector space model, broad enough to fit every need for its application, as well as the selection of a successful classifier which will allow for quick and accurate emotion identification. As of 2010, the most frequently used classifiers were linear discriminant classifiers (LDC), k-nearest neighbor (k-NN), Gaussian mixture model (GMM), support vector machines (SVM), artificial neural networks (ANN), decision tree algorithms, and hidden Markov models (HMMs). Various studies showed that choosing the appropriate classifier can significantly enhance the overall performance of the system. The list below gives a brief description of each algorithm: LDC – Classification happens based on the value obtained from the linear combination of the feature values, which are usually provided in the form of vector features. k-NN – Classification happens by locating the object in the feature space, and comparing it with the k nearest neighbors (training examples). The majority vote decides on the classification. GMM – A probabilistic model used for representing the existence of subpopulations within the overall population. Each sub-population is described using the mixture distribution, which allows for classification of observations into the sub-populations. SVM – A type of (usually binary) linear classifier which decides in which of the two (or more) possible classes, each input may fall into. ANN – is a mathematical model, inspired by biological neural networks, that can better grasp possible non-linearities of the feature space. Decision tree algorithms – work based on following a decision tree in which leaves represent the classification outcome, and branches represent the conjunction of subsequent features that lead to the classification. HMMs – a statistical Markov model in which the states and state transitions are not directly available to observation. Instead, the series of outputs dependent on the states are visible. In the case of affect recognition, the outputs represent the sequence of speech feature vectors, which allow the deduction of states' sequences through which the model progressed. The states can consist of various intermediate steps in the expression of an emotion, and each of them has a probability distribution over the possible output vectors. The states' sequences allow us to predict the affective state which we are trying to classify, and this is one of the most commonly used techniques within the area of speech affect detection. It has been proven that having enough acoustic evidence available the emotional state of a person can be classified by a set of majority voting classifiers. The proposed set of classifiers is based on three main classifiers: kNN, C4.5 and SVM-RBF Kernel. This set achieves better performance than each basic classifier taken separately. It is compared with two other sets of classifiers: one-against-all (OAA) multiclass SVM with Hybrid kernels and th