Switching to and Combining Offline-Adapted Cluster Acoustic Models based on Unsupervised Segment Classification

40th International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) 2015
Switching to and Combining Offline-Adapted Cluster Acoustic Models based on Unsupervised Segment Classification
Abstract

The performance of automatic speech recognition system degrades significantly when the incoming audio differs from training data. Maximum likelihood linear regression has been widely used for unsupervised adaptation, usually in a multiple-pass recognition process. Here we present a novel adaptation framework for which the offline, supervised, high-quality adaptation is applied to clustered channel/speaker conditions that are defined with automatic and manual clustering of the training data. Upon online recognition, each speech segment is classified into one of the training clusters in an unsupervised way, and the corresponding top acoustic models are used for recognition. Recognition lattice outputs are combined. Experiments are performed on the Wall Street Journal data, and a 37.5% relative reduction of Word Error Rate is reported. The proposed approach is also compared with a general speaker adaptive training approach.

Another publication from the same category: Machine Learning and Data Science

WWW '17 Perth Australia April 2017

Drawing Sound Conclusions from Noisy Judgments

David Goldberg, Andrew Trotman, Xiao Wang, Wei Min, Zongru Wan

The quality of a search engine is typically evaluated using hand-labeled data sets, where the labels indicate the relevance of documents to queries. Often the number of labels needed is too large to be created by the best annotators, and so less accurate labels (e.g. from crowdsourcing) must be used. This introduces errors in the labels, and thus errors in standard precision metrics (such as P@k and DCG); the lower the quality of the judge, the more errorful the labels, consequently the more inaccurate the metric. We introduce equations and algorithms that can adjust the metrics to the values they would have had if there were no annotation errors.

This is especially important when two search engines are compared by comparing their metrics. We give examples where one engine appeared to be statistically significantly better than the other, but the effect disappeared after the metrics were corrected for annotation error. In other words the evidence supporting a statistical difference was illusory, and caused by a failure to account for annotation error.

Keywords