MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1902248030 · doi:10.1109/icassp.1995.479599

Use of generalized dynamic feature parameters for speech recognition: maximum likelihood and minimum classification error approaches

2002· article· en· W1902248030 on OpenAlexaff
C. Rathinavelu, Li Deng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWeightingSpeech recognitionPreprocessorTIMITHidden Markov modelPattern recognition (psychology)Speech processingMel-frequency cepstrumWord error rateFeature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceFeature extraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study we implemented a speech recognizer based on the integrated view, proposed first by Deng (see IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol.1, no.4, p.66-69, 1994), on the speech preprocessing and speech modeling problems in the recognizer design. The integrated model we developed generalizes the conventional, currently widely used delta-parameter technique, which has been confined strictly to the preprocessing domain only, in two significant ways. First, the new model contains state-dependent weighting functions responsible for transforming static speech features into the dynamic ones in a slowly time-varying manner. Second, novel maximum-likelihood and minimum-classification-error based learning algorithms are developed for the model that allows joint optimization of the state-dependent weighting functions and the remaining conventional HMM parameters. The experimental results obtained from a standard TIMIT phonetic classification task provide preliminary evidence for the effectiveness of our new, general approaches to the use of the dynamic characteristics of speech spectra.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.198
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.070 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207