Making a robot recognize three simultaneous sentences in real-time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A humanoid robot under real-world environments usually hears mixtures of sounds, and thus three capabilities are essential for robot audition; sound source localization, separation, and recognition of separated sounds. We have adopted the missing feature theory (MFT) for automatic recognition of separated speech, and developed the robot audition system. A microphone array is used along with a real-time dedicated implementation of geometric source separation (GSS) and a multi-channel post-filter that gives us a further reduction of interferences from other sources. The automatic speech recognition based on MFT recognizes separated sounds by generating missing feature masks automatically from the post-filtering step. The main advantage of this approach for humanoid robots resides in the fact that the ASR with a clean acoustic model can adapt the distortion of separated sound by consulting the post-filter feature masks. In this paper, we used the improved Julius as an MFT-based automatic speech recognizer (ASR). The Julius is a real-time large vocabulary continuous speech recognition (LVCSR) system. We performed the experiment to evaluate our robot audition system. In this experiment, the system recognizes a sentence, not an isolated word. We showed the improvement in the system performance through three simultaneous speech recognition on the humanoid SIG2.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".