MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412157971 · doi:10.61850/allj.v30i2.732

Combined CNN-LSTM for Enhancing Clean and Noisy Speech Recognition

2024· article· en· W4412157971 on OpenAlexaff
Noussaiba Djeffal, Djamel Addou, Hamza Kheddar, Sid‐Ahmed Selouani

Bibliographic record

VenueAl-lisaniyyat. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpeech recognitionComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a hybrid Convolutional Neural Network-Long Short-Term Memory (CNN-LSTM) approach for Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) using deep learning techniques on the Aurora-2 dataset. The dataset includes both clean and multi-condition modes, encompassing four noise scenarios : subway, babble, car, and exhibition hall, each evaluated at different signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs), and clean condition, and the results are compared with those from the ASC-10 dataset and the ESC-10 dataset. The problem addressed is the need for robust ASR models that perform well in both clean and noisy environments. The aim of utilizing the CNN-LSTM architecture is to enhance the recognition performance by combining the strengths of CNNs and LSTMs, rather than relying on either CNNs or LSTMs alone. Experimental results demonstrate that the combined CNN-LSTM model achieves superior classification performance, in clean environments on the Aurora2 dataset, attaining an accuracy of 97.96%, surpassing the individual CNN and LSTM models, which achieved 97.21% and 96.06%, respectively. In noisy conditions, the hybrid model also outperforms the standalone models, with an accuracy of 90.72%, compared to 90.12% for CNN and 86.12% for LSTM. These findings indicate that the CNN-LSTM model is more effective in handling various noise conditions and improving overall ASR accuracy.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.663

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 communication0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAl-lisaniyyat.Same topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207