MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132273019 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2005.1557203

Robust recognition of noisy speech over H.323 networks

2006· article· en· W2132273019 on OpenAlexaff
Gang Chen, H. Tolba, Douglas O’Shaughnessy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Computer scienceSpeech recognitionNetwork packetPacket lossUncorrelatedDistortion (music)Noise (video)Speech enhancementSoftware deploymentVoice activity detectionWord error rateSpeech processingArtificial intelligenceNoise reductionBandwidth (computing)TelecommunicationsComputer networkMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we investigate the performance of a speech recognizer on noisy speech transmitted over an H.323 channel, where the minimum mean-square error log spectra amplitude (MMSE-LSA) method is used to reduce the mismatch between training and deployment condition in order to achieve robust speech recognition. In the IP communication environment, one of the sources of distortion to the speech is packet loss. Of course, when ASR systems are used in adverse conditions, their performance degrades. In our work, we not only evaluate the impact of packet losses on speech recognition performance, but also explore the effects of uncorrelated additive noise on the performance. For measuring the influence of missing speech packets on the ASR system performance, we use a Soekris net 4501 IP simulator made by the Engineering Soekris Engineering Company, in order to control packet loss rate. To explore how additive acoustic noise affects the speech recognition performance, six types of noise sources are selected for use in our experiments. The experimental results indicate that the MMSE-LSA enhancement method apparently increased robustness for some type of additive noise under certain packet loss rates over the IP

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.194 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207