MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084215616 · doi:10.1109/icassp.2014.6854821

Two-stage speaker adaptation in subspace Gaussian mixture models

2014· article· en· W2084215616 on OpenAlexaff
Sina Hamidi Ghalehjegh, Richard C. Rose

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSubspace topologyFeature vectorHidden Markov modelPattern recognition (psychology)Context (archaeology)Mixture modelArtificial intelligenceProjection (relational algebra)Linear subspaceFeature (linguistics)CovarianceGaussianAdaptation (eye)AlgorithmMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A two-stage speaker adaptation approach is proposed for the subspace Gaussian mixture model (SGMM) [1] in large vocabulary automatic speech recognition (ASR). The SGMM differs from the more well known continuous density hidden Markov model (CDHMM) in that a large portion of the SGMM parameters are dedicated to shared full covariance Gaussian subspace parameters and a relatively small number of parameters are used for state dependent projection vectors. Both model space and feature space adaptation are investigated. First, an efficient regression based approach for subspace vector adaptation (SVA) is presented. Second, an efficient approach is presented for feature space adaptation using constrained maximum likelihood linear regression (CMLLR) in the SGMM. While both of these adaptation scenarios have previously been investigated in the context of the SGMM [2, 3], a more efficient and numerically stable procedure is presented here for estimating the parameters of the regression based transformations. Both transformation matrices are obtained using an optimization technique that iteratively updates the rows of the regression matrices. It is shown that using these feature space and model space approaches for unsupervised speaker adaptation provides complementary improvements in SGMM based ASR word accuracy.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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