Multiexpert Automatic Speech Recognition Using Acoustic and Myoelectric Signals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classification accuracy of conventional automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems can decrease dramatically under acoustically noisy conditions. To improve classification accuracy and increase system robustness a multiexpert ASR system is implemented. In this system, acoustic speech information is supplemented with information from facial myoelectric signals (MES). A new method of combining experts, known as the plausibility method, is employed to combine an acoustic ASR expert and a MES ASR expert. The plausibility method of combining multiple experts, which is based on the mathematical framework of evidence theory, is compared to the Borda count and score-based methods of combination. Acoustic and facial MES data were collected from 5 subjects, using a 10-word vocabulary across an 18-dB range of acoustic noise. As expected the performance of an acoustic expert decreases with increasing acoustic noise; classification accuracies of the acoustic ASR expert are as low as 11.5%. The effect of noise is significantly reduced with the addition of the MES ASR expert. Classification accuracies remain above 78.8% across the 18-dB range of acoustic noise, when the plausibility method is used to combine the opinions of multiple experts. In addition, the plausibility method produced classification accuracies higher than any individual expert at all noise levels, as well as the highest classification accuracies, except at the 9-dB noise level. Using the Borda count and score-based multiexpert systems, classification accuracies are improved relative to the acoustic ASR expert but are as low as 51.5% and 59.5%, respectively.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".