Multi-lingual speech recognition with low-rank multi-task deep neural networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-task learning (MTL) for deep neural network (DNN) multilingual acoustic models has been shown to be effective for learning parameters that are common or shared between multiple languages[1, 2]. In the MTL paradigm, the number of parameters in the output layer is large and scales with the number of languages used in training. This output layer becomes a computational bottleneck. For mono-lingual DNNs, low-rank matrix factorization (LRMF) of weight matrices have yielded large computational savings[3, 4]. The LRMF proposed in this work for MTL, is for the original languagespecific block matrices to “share” a common matrix, with resulting low-rank language specific block matrices. The impact of LRMF is presented in two scenarios, namely : (a) improving performance in a target language when auxiliary languages are included during multi-lingual training; and (b) cross-language transfer to an unseen language with only 1 hour of transcribed training data. A 44% parameter reduction in the final layer, manifests itself in providing a lower memory footprint and faster training times. An experimental study shows that the LRMF multi-lingual DNN provides competitive performance compared to a full-rank multi-lingual DNN in both scenarios.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it