MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Comparison of Discrete Latent Variable Models for Speech Representation Learning

2021· article· en· W3161411634 on OpenAlexaff
Henry Zhou, Alexei Baevski, Michael Auli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLatent variableSpeech recognitionArtificial intelligenceRepresentation (politics)Encoding (memory)Word error rateVariable (mathematics)Latent variable modelWord (group theory)Pattern recognition (psychology)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neural latent variable models enable the discovery of interesting structure in speech audio data. This paper presents a comparison of two different approaches which are broadly based on predicting future time-steps or auto-encoding the input signal. Our study compares the representations learned by vq-vae and vq-wav2vec in terms of sub-word unit discovery and phoneme recognition performance. Results show that future time-step prediction with vq-wav2vec achieves better performance. The best system achieves an error rate of 13.22 on the ZeroSpeech 2019 ABX phoneme discrimination challenge.

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 score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207