MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125260254 · doi:10.1109/asru.2007.4430130

A compact semidefinite programming (SDP) formulation for large margin estimation of HMMS in speech recognition

2007· article· en· W2125260254 on OpenAlexaff
Yan Yin, Hui Jiang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemidefinite programmingComputer scienceMargin (machine learning)GaussianOptimization problemMathematical optimizationPattern recognition (psychology)Variable (mathematics)Feature vectorMixture modelAlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we study a new semidefinite programming (SDP) formulation to improve optimization efficiency for large margin estimation (LME) of HMMs in speech recognition. We re-formulate the same LME problem as smaller-scale SDP problems to speed up the SDP-based LME training, especially for large model sets. In the new formulation, instead of building the SDP problem from a single huge variable matrix, we consider to formulate the SDP problem based on many small independent variable matrices, each of which is built separately from a Gaussian mean vector. Moreover, we propose to further decompose feature vectors and Gaussian mean vectors according to static, delta and accelerate components to build even more compact variable matrices. This method can significantly reduce the total number of free variables and result in much smaller SDP problem even for the same model set. The proposed new LME/SDP methods have been evaluated on a connected digit string recognition task using the TIDIGITS database. Experimental results show that it can significantly improve optimization efficiency (about 30-50 times faster for large model sets) and meanwhile it can provide slightly better optimization accuracy and recognition performance than our previous SDP formulation.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207