A comparison of several acoustic representations for speech recognition with degraded and undegraded speech
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several acoustic representations have been compared in speaker-dependent and independent connected and isolated-word recognition tests with undegraded speech and with speech degraded by adding white noise and by applying a 6-dB/octave spectral tilt. The representations comprised the output of an auditory model, cepstrum coefficients derived from an FFT-based mel-scale filter bank with various weighting schemes applied to the coefficients, cepstrum coefficients augmented with measures of their rates of change with time, and sets of linear discriminant functions derived from the filter-bank output and called IMELDA. The model outperformed the cepstrum representations except in noise-free connected-word tests, where it had a high insertion rate. The best cepstrum weighting scheme was derived from within-class variances. Its behavior may explain the empirical adjustments found necessary with other schemes. IMELDA outperformed all other representations in all conditions and is computationally simple.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">></ETX>
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it