MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981185131 · doi:10.1109/iscslp.2014.6936584

Speaker adaptive bottleneck features extraction for LVCSR based on discriminative learning of speaker codes

2014· article· en· W1981185131 on OpenAlexaff
Changqing Kong, Shaofei Xue, Jianqing Gao, Wu Guo, Li-Rong Dai, Hui Jiang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSpeech recognitionDiscriminative modelSpeaker recognitionHidden Markov modelBottleneckSpeaker diarisationAdaptation (eye)Word error ratePattern recognition (psychology)Feature extractionArtificial intelligenceTask (project management)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, several fast speaker adaptation methods based on the so-called speaker codes (SC) have been proposed for the hybrid DNN-HMM speech recognition model [1, 2, 3]. In these methods the target speaker features are modified to match the given speaker-independent models or the speaker-independent models are transformed towards one particular speaker based on the discriminative learning of speaker codes. Previous researches have shown that these proposed SC-based adaptation methods are very effective to adapt large DNN models using only a small amount of adaptation data. In this work, we have explored the combination of direct speaker adaptation technique in model space based on speaker codes (mSA-SC) and bottleneck features where mSA-SC is used as an extraction instrument of speaker adaptive bottleneck features. We have evaluated the proposed speaker adaptive bottleneck features extraction method in two speech recognition tasks, namely PSC Mandarin task and large scale 320-hr Switchboard task. Experimental results have verified that it is quite suitable for very large scale tasks. For example, the Switchboard results have shown that it can achieve relative 9% reduction in word error rate on an unsupervised speaker adaptation scheme.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207