Accented Speech Recognition Based on End-to-End Domain Adversarial Training of Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of automatic speech recognition (ASR) may be degraded when accented speech is recognized because the speech has some linguistic differences from standard speech. Conventional accented speech recognition studies have utilized the accent embedding method, in which the accent embedding features are directly fed into the ASR network. Although the method improves the performance of accented speech recognition, it has some restrictions, such as increasing the computational costs. This study proposes an efficient method of training the ASR model for accented speech in a domain adversarial way based on the Domain Adversarial Neural Network (DANN). The DANN plays a role as a domain adaptation in which the training data and test data have different distributions. Thus, our approach is expected to construct a reliable ASR model for accented speech by reducing the distribution differences between accented speech and standard speech. DANN has three sub-networks: the feature extractor, the domain classifier, and the label predictor. To adjust the DANN for accented speech recognition, we constructed these three sub-networks independently, considering the characteristics of accented speech. In particular, we used an end-to-end framework based on Connectionist Temporal Classification (CTC) to develop the label predictor, a very important module that directly affects ASR results. To verify the efficiency of the proposed approach, we conducted several experiments of accented speech recognition for four English accents including Australian, Canadian, British (England), and Indian accents. The experimental results showed that the proposed DANN-based model outperformed the baseline model for all accents, indicating that the end-to-end domain adversarial training effectively reduced the distribution differences between accented speech and standard speech.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".