Deep convolutional neural networks for LVCSR
Bibliographic record
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".