MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133044638

Scale in Acoustic Modelling

2023· dissertation· W7133044638 on OpenAlexaff
Sean Robertson

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2023
Typedissertation
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHidden Markov modelRepresentation (politics)Pipeline (software)Feature (linguistics)ComputationEvent (particle physics)ENCODEScale (ratio)Acoustic modelPhone
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Speech signals encode information across multiple, often overlapping, scales in time. I argue that, by designing acoustic models faithful to that multi-scale encoding, speech recognition accuracy can sometimes be improved. I do so by partitioning the acoustic model into a three-component pipeline and design interventions for each. In the first stage, feature extraction, the acoustic model transforms an audio signal into a filter-bank representation. We modify the traditional recipe, experimenting with different filters with better resolution in both frequency and scale. We also rearrange the spectral windowing equation to capture overlapping temporal information with higher resolution. With these modifications, we find significant gains in phone recognition performance on already-competitive models. For the second stage in which machine learning takes place, we propose a novel neural layer which is scale equivariant, similar to how a convolutional layer is shift equivariant. We pit those layers against one another in a phone recognition task and find that, although the former does outperform the latter, it uses twice the parameters to do so. When fixing the number of parameters, performance is commensurate between models. In the final stage, the acoustic model must transduce the learned representation into a transcription. We design a statistical framework for transducing time series events compatible with multi-scale phenomena by modelling event locations and types separately. Determining that marginalizing out locations as a latent variable would be combinatorically infeasible in its full generality, we propose either making simplifying assumptions until computation is tractable or performing stochastic estimation. We offer algorithms for stochastic estimation with nicer theoretical properties and better empirical performance (in terms of phone recognition) than some of the prior techniques we generalize.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.004

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.276 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207