MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Novel Weighted Dynamic Time Warping for Light Weight Speaker-Dependent Speech Recognition in Noisy and Bad Recording Conditions

2014· article· en· W1985023925 on OpenAlexaff
Xiang Lilan Zhang, Ji Ping Sun, Xu Huang, Zhi Gang Luo

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Mechanics and Materials · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTime Series Analysis and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamic time warpingSpeech recognitionComputer scienceWord error rateVocabularyArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lightweight speaker-dependent (SD) automatic speech recognition (ASR) is a promising solution for the problems of possibility of disclosing personal privacy and difficulty of obtaining training material for many seldom used English words and (often non-English) names. Dynamic time warping (DTW) algorithm is the state-of-the-art algorithm for small foot-print SD ASR applications, which have limited storage space and small vocabulary. In our previous work, we have successfully developed two fast and accurate DTW variations for clean speech data. However, speech recognition in adverse conditions is still a big challenge. In order to improve recognition accuracy in noisy and bad recording conditions, such as too high or low recording volume, we introduce a novel weighted DTW method. This method defines a feature index for each time frame of training data, and then applies it to the core DTW process to tune the final alignment score. With extensive experiments on one representative SD dataset of three speakers' recordings, our method achieves better accuracy than DTW, where 0.5% relative reduction of error rate (RRER) on clean speech data and 7.5% RRER on noisy and bad recording speech data. To the best of our knowledge, our new weighted DTW is the first weighted DTW method specially designed for speech data in noisy and bad recording conditions.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.599
Threshold uncertainty score0.723

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 venueApplied Mechanics and MaterialsSame topicTime Series Analysis and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207