MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062227835 · doi:10.1109/icassp.2013.6639346

Improving deep neural networks for LVCSR using rectified linear units and dropout

2013· article· en· W2062227835 on OpenAlexaff
George E. Dahl, Tara N. Sainath, Geoffrey E. Hinton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDropout (neural networks)Artificial neural networkSpeech recognitionArtificial intelligenceSigmoid functionDiscriminative modelDeep neural networksTask (project management)VocabularyDeep learningMixture modelHidden Markov modelTime delay neural networkBayesian probabilityPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, pre-trained deep neural networks (DNNs) have outperformed traditional acoustic models based on Gaussian mixture models (GMMs) on a variety of large vocabulary speech recognition benchmarks. Deep neural nets have also achieved excellent results on various computer vision tasks using a random “dropout” procedure that drastically improves generalization error by randomly omitting a fraction of the hidden units in all layers. Since dropout helps avoid over-fitting, it has also been successful on a small-scale phone recognition task using larger neural nets. However, training deep neural net acoustic models for large vocabulary speech recognition takes a very long time and dropout is likely to only increase training time. Neural networks with rectified linear unit (ReLU) non-linearities have been highly successful for computer vision tasks and proved faster to train than standard sigmoid units, sometimes also improving discriminative performance. In this work, we show on a 50-hour English Broadcast News task that modified deep neural networks using ReLUs trained with dropout during frame level training provide an 4.2% relative improvement over a DNN trained with sigmoid units, and a 14.4% relative improvement over a strong GMM/HMM system. We were able to obtain our results with minimal human hyper-parameter tuning using publicly available Bayesian optimization code.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1,281
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207