MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144860123 · doi:10.1109/wescan.1995.494066

Neural code-excited linear prediction for low power speech compression

2002· article· en· W2144860123 on OpenAlexaff
S. Kamarsu, H.C. Card

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Data Compression Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCodebookComputer scienceCode-excited linear predictionVector quantizationSpeech codingUnsupervised learningSpeech recognitionLearning vector quantizationArtificial intelligenceCompetitive learningVector sum excited linear predictionData compressionLinear predictive codingArtificial neural networkLinear predictionSupervised learningMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we discuss the use of artificial neural learning methods for low bit-rate speech compression, potentially in non-stationary environments. Unsupervised learning algorithms are particularly well-suited for vector quantization (VQ) which is used in many speech compression applications. We discuss two unsupervised learning algorithms: frequency-sensitive competitive learning and Kohonen's self-organizing maps which have both been investigated for learning the codebook vectors in an adaptive vector quantizer. In contrast with earlier work, we have employed these learning rules in VQ of the linear predictive coding (LPC) prediction residual. The performance of these unsupervised learning algorithms in speaker-dependent and speaker-independent speech compression are presented. Our results compare favourably with those of code-excited linear prediction (CELP) requiring reduced computational power with a tolerable reduction in speech quality. We also explore the effects of limited precision on classification and learning in competitive learning algorithms for low power VLSI implementations.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.594

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Data Compression TechniquesFrench-language works237,207