584 research outputs found
Improvements to deep convolutional neural networks for LVCSR
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) are more powerful than Deep Neural
Networks (DNN), as they are able to better reduce spectral variation in the
input signal. This has also been confirmed experimentally, with CNNs showing
improvements in word error rate (WER) between 4-12% relative compared to DNNs
across a variety of LVCSR tasks. In this paper, we describe different methods
to further improve CNN performance. First, we conduct a deep analysis comparing
limited weight sharing and full weight sharing with state-of-the-art features.
Second, we apply various pooling strategies that have shown improvements in
computer vision to an LVCSR speech task. Third, we introduce a method to
effectively incorporate speaker adaptation, namely fMLLR, into log-mel
features. Fourth, we introduce an effective strategy to use dropout during
Hessian-free sequence training. We find that with these improvements,
particularly with fMLLR and dropout, we are able to achieve an additional 2-3%
relative improvement in WER on a 50-hour Broadcast News task over our previous
best CNN baseline. On a larger 400-hour BN task, we find an additional 4-5%
relative improvement over our previous best CNN baseline.Comment: 6 pages, 1 figur
Very Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Robust Speech Recognition
This paper describes the extension and optimization of our previous work on
very deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for effective recognition of
noisy speech in the Aurora 4 task. The appropriate number of convolutional
layers, the sizes of the filters, pooling operations and input feature maps are
all modified: the filter and pooling sizes are reduced and dimensions of input
feature maps are extended to allow adding more convolutional layers.
Furthermore appropriate input padding and input feature map selection
strategies are developed. In addition, an adaptation framework using joint
training of very deep CNN with auxiliary features i-vector and fMLLR features
is developed. These modifications give substantial word error rate reductions
over the standard CNN used as baseline. Finally the very deep CNN is combined
with an LSTM-RNN acoustic model and it is shown that state-level weighted log
likelihood score combination in a joint acoustic model decoding scheme is very
effective. On the Aurora 4 task, the very deep CNN achieves a WER of 8.81%,
further 7.99% with auxiliary feature joint training, and 7.09% with LSTM-RNN
joint decoding.Comment: accepted by SLT 201
The Microsoft 2016 Conversational Speech Recognition System
We describe Microsoft's conversational speech recognition system, in which we
combine recent developments in neural-network-based acoustic and language
modeling to advance the state of the art on the Switchboard recognition task.
Inspired by machine learning ensemble techniques, the system uses a range of
convolutional and recurrent neural networks. I-vector modeling and lattice-free
MMI training provide significant gains for all acoustic model architectures.
Language model rescoring with multiple forward and backward running RNNLMs, and
word posterior-based system combination provide a 20% boost. The best single
system uses a ResNet architecture acoustic model with RNNLM rescoring, and
achieves a word error rate of 6.9% on the NIST 2000 Switchboard task. The
combined system has an error rate of 6.2%, representing an improvement over
previously reported results on this benchmark task
English Conversational Telephone Speech Recognition by Humans and Machines
One of the most difficult speech recognition tasks is accurate recognition of
human to human communication. Advances in deep learning over the last few years
have produced major speech recognition improvements on the representative
Switchboard conversational corpus. Word error rates that just a few years ago
were 14% have dropped to 8.0%, then 6.6% and most recently 5.8%, and are now
believed to be within striking range of human performance. This then raises two
issues - what IS human performance, and how far down can we still drive speech
recognition error rates? A recent paper by Microsoft suggests that we have
already achieved human performance. In trying to verify this statement, we
performed an independent set of human performance measurements on two
conversational tasks and found that human performance may be considerably
better than what was earlier reported, giving the community a significantly
harder goal to achieve. We also report on our own efforts in this area,
presenting a set of acoustic and language modeling techniques that lowered the
word error rate of our own English conversational telephone LVCSR system to the
level of 5.5%/10.3% on the Switchboard/CallHome subsets of the Hub5 2000
evaluation, which - at least at the writing of this paper - is a new
performance milestone (albeit not at what we measure to be human performance!).
On the acoustic side, we use a score fusion of three models: one LSTM with
multiple feature inputs, a second LSTM trained with speaker-adversarial
multi-task learning and a third residual net (ResNet) with 25 convolutional
layers and time-dilated convolutions. On the language modeling side, we use
word and character LSTMs and convolutional WaveNet-style language models
Comparing Human and Machine Errors in Conversational Speech Transcription
Recent work in automatic recognition of conversational telephone speech (CTS)
has achieved accuracy levels comparable to human transcribers, although there
is some debate how to precisely quantify human performance on this task, using
the NIST 2000 CTS evaluation set. This raises the question what systematic
differences, if any, may be found differentiating human from machine
transcription errors. In this paper we approach this question by comparing the
output of our most accurate CTS recognition system to that of a standard speech
transcription vendor pipeline. We find that the most frequent substitution,
deletion and insertion error types of both outputs show a high degree of
overlap. The only notable exception is that the automatic recognizer tends to
confuse filled pauses ("uh") and backchannel acknowledgments ("uhhuh"). Humans
tend not to make this error, presumably due to the distinctive and opposing
pragmatic functions attached to these words. Furthermore, we quantify the
correlation between human and machine errors at the speaker level, and
investigate the effect of speaker overlap between training and test data.
Finally, we report on an informal "Turing test" asking humans to discriminate
between automatic and human transcription error cases
- …