MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Flow-ER: A Flow-Based Embedding Regularization Strategy for Robust Speech Representation Learning

2023· article· en· W4319862706 on OpenAlexafffund
Woo Hyun Kang, Jahangir Alam, Abderrahim Fathan

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsComputer Research Institute of Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEmbeddingComputer scienceRegularization (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningDeep learningSpeech recognitionRepresentation (politics)Feature learningBottleneckTask (project management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the recent years, various deep learning-based embedding methods were proposed. Although the deep learning-based embedding extraction methods have shown good performance in numerous tasks including speaker verification, language identification and anti-spoofing, their performance is limited when it comes to mismatched conditions due to the variability within them unrelated to the main task. In order to alleviate this problem, we propose a novel training strategy that regularizes the embedding network to have minimum information about the nuisance attributes. To achieve this, our proposed method directly incorporates the information bottleneck scheme into the training process, where the mutual information is estimated using an auxiliary normalizing flow network. The performance of the proposed method is evaluated on different speech processing tasks and found to provide improvement over the standard training strategy in all experimentations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT)Same topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207