The Mason-Alberta Phonetic Segmenter: a forced alignment system based on deep neural networks and interpolation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given an orthographic transcription, forced alignment systems automatically determine boundaries between segments in speech, facilitating the use of large corpora. In the present paper, we introduce a neural network-based forced alignment system, the Mason-Alberta Phonetic Segmenter (MAPS). MAPS serves as a testbed for two possible improvements we pursue for forced alignment systems. The first is treating the acoustic model as a tagger, rather than a classifier, motivated by the common understanding that segments are not truly discrete and often overlap. The second is an interpolation technique to allow more precise boundaries than the typical 10 ms limit in modern systems. During testing, all system configurations we trained significantly outperformed the state-of-the-art Montreal Forced Aligner in the 10 ms boundary placement tolerance threshold. The greatest difference achieved was a 28.13 % relative performance increase. The Montreal Forced Aligner began to slightly outperform our models at around a 30 ms tolerance. We also reflect on the training process for acoustic modeling in forced alignment, highlighting how the output targets for these models do not match phoneticians' conception of similarity between phones and that reconciling this tension may require rethinking the task and output targets or how speech itself should be segmented.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.006 |
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".