Deep convolutional neural networks for LVCSR
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- none
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Simulation or modelingConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: MethodsConsensus signal: none
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.977
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.184
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) are an alternative type of neural network that can be used to reduce spectral variations and model spectral correlations which exist in signals. Since speech signals exhibit both of these properties, CNNs are a more effective model for speech compared to Deep Neural Networks (DNNs). In this paper, we explore applying CNNs to large vocabulary speech tasks. First, we determine the appropriate architecture to make CNNs effective compared to DNNs for LVCSR tasks. Specifically, we focus on how many convolutional layers are needed, what is the optimal number of hidden units, what is the best pooling strategy, and the best input feature type for CNNs. We then explore the behavior of neural network features extracted from CNNs on a variety of LVCSR tasks, comparing CNNs to DNNs and GMMs. We find that CNNs offer between a 13-30% relative improvement over GMMs, and a 4-12% relative improvement over DNNs, on a 400-hr Broadcast News and 300-hr Switchboard task.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Topic
- Speech and Audio Processing
- Field
- Computer Science
- Canadian institutions
- University of Toronto
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- Computer scienceConvolutional neural networkPoolingArtificial intelligenceSpeech recognitionFocus (optics)VocabularyFeature (linguistics)Deep neural networksArtificial neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes