MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116453114 · doi:10.1109/icassp.1998.674418

Speech recognition in non-stationary adverse environments

2002· article· en· W2116453114 on OpenAlexaff
Zhonghua Wang, Patrick Kenny

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpeech recognitionMarkov chainWord error rateHidden Markov modelComputer scienceMarkov modelSpeaker recognitionPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a new approach, called non-stationary adaptation (NA), to recognize speech under non-stationary adverse environments. Two models are used: one is a speaker-independent hidden Markov model (HMM) for clean speech, the other is an ergodic Markov chain representing the non-stationary adverse environment. Each state in the Markov chain represents one stationary adverse condition and has associated with it an affine transform that is estimated by maximum likelihood linear regression (MLLR). Three kinds of adverse environments are considered: (i) multi-speaker speech recognition where the speaker identity changes randomly and this constitutes a non-stationary adverse condition, (ii) the recognition of speech corrupted by machinegun noise, and (iii) the crosstalk problem. The algorithm is tested on the Nov92 development database of WSJF0 with a vocabulary size of 20000. In multi-speaker speech recognition, NA decreases the error rate by 13.6%. For speech corrupted by machinegun noise, a one-state Markov chain decreases the error rate by 18%, and a two-state Markov chain gives another 14% decrease in error rate. In the crosstalk problem, a one-state Markov chain decreases the error rate by 16.8%. Two-state and three-state Markov chains decrease the error rate by 22% and 24.4%, 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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.196 · 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.

Study designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207