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

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

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