MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W27446868

Speech analysis and synthesis based on ARMA lattice model.

2003· article· en· W27446868 on OpenAlexaffabout
Min Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpeech recognitionComputer scienceSpeech synthesisNatural language processingArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research documented in this thesis presents a pitch synchronous speech analysis and synthesis system using an ARMA (auto regressive moving average) lattice filter. The LP (linear predictive) model is, by far, the most widely used speech production model in speech processing. A well-known drawback with the LP model is that it ignores the effect of the nasal cavity. The mismatch between the model and the vocal tract becomes severe for nasal sound production and leads to poor synthesized speech. The nasal tract effect can be included in the speech production model by representing the vocal tract with an ARMA filter. Thus, better synthesis speech is expected, at least for nasal phonemes. In this thesis, the ARMA lattice filter is used to model the vocal tract. Based on analysis and experiments, it is concluded that the estimation of excitation source for voiced speech is essential in obtaining the ARMA lattice filter coefficients and important in generating high quality synthesis speech. By comparison, LF model is chosen for this purpose. In the proposed analysis system, the analysis parameters include: ARMA filter coefficients, LF model parameters, voice type, pitch and gain, which are analyzed pitch synchronously. Correspondingly, the pitch synchronous speech synthesis system is developed. At the end, the proposed system is simulated for both nasal and non-nasal phonemes and the results are compared with those from the LP model.Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2003 .W36. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 42-02, page: 0652. Adviser: H. K. Kwan. Thesis (M.A.Sc.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2003.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.219
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.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor)Same topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207