MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2544551282 · doi:10.1109/icscs.2009.5412292

Combined speech decoders output for phoneme recognition enhancement

2009· article· en· W2544551282 on OpenAlexaff
Kacem Abida, Fakhri Karray, Wafa Abida

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSpeech recognitionMel-frequency cepstrumRobustness (evolution)Feature extractionPattern recognition (psychology)Normalization (sociology)CepstrumArtificial intelligenceNaive Bayes classifierClassifier (UML)Support vector machineSpeaker recognitionSpeech enhancementNoise reduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phoneme recognition is an essential component of any robust speech decoder and has been tackled by many researchers. Speech feature extraction constitutes the front end module of any speech decoder: it plays an essential role and has a strong impact on the recognition performance. The research community is aggressively searching for more powerful solutions which combine the existing feature extraction methods for a better and more reliable information capture from the analog speech signal. In this research work, we propose new approaches to combining phoneme recognizers' output in order to provide better recognition performance and improved robustness with respect to noise and channel distortions. Machine learning tools such as the naive Bayes classifier, decision trees, and support vector machines have been used in the combination of hypotheses. Experiments under different SNR levels have proven that our proposed approach outperforms the two most common feature extraction techniques, namely mel frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCC) and perceptual linear prediction (PLP) with cepstral mean subtraction (CMS) and RASTA respectively, for channel normalization.

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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

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)0.0000.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207