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