MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133932086 · doi:10.3115/1687878.1687897

A ranking approach to stress prediction for letter-to-phoneme conversion

2009· article· en· W2133932086 on OpenAlexafffund
Qing Dou, Shane Bergsma, Sittichai Jiampojamarn, Grzegorz Kondrak

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStress (linguistics)SubstringComputer scienceSpeech recognitionRanking (information retrieval)PronunciationArtificial intelligenceWord error rateSupport vector machineRank (graph theory)Sequence (biology)Speech synthesisNatural language processingWord (group theory)Pattern recognition (psychology)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Correct stress placement is important in text-to-speech systems, in terms of both the overall accuracy and the naturalness of pronunciation. In this paper, we formulate stress assignment as a sequence prediction problem. We represent words as sequences of substrings, and use the substrings as features in a Support Vector Machine (SVM) ranker, which is trained to rank possible stress patterns. The ranking approach facilitates inclusion of arbitrary features over both the input sequence and output stress pattern. Our system advances the current state-of-the-art, predicting primary stress in English, German, and Dutch with up to 98% word accuracy on phonemes, and 96% on letters. The system is also highly accurate in predicting secondary stress. Finally, when applied in tandem with an L2P system, it substantially reduces the word error rate when predicting both phonemes and stress.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207