1. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF AURORA LARGE VOCABULARY BASELINE SYSTEM Naveen Parihar, and Joseph Picone Center for Advanced Vehicular Systems Mississippi State University {parihar, picone}@isip.msstate.edu D. Pearce Speech and MultiModal Group Motorola Labs, UK bdp003@motorola.com H. G. Hirsch Dept. of Elec. Eng. and Computer Science Niederrhein University, Germany hans-guenter.hirsch@hs-niederrhein.de URL: www.isip.msstate.edu/projects/ies/publications/conferences/www.isip.msstate.edu/projects/ies/publications/conferences/

2. Page 1 of 15 Performance Analysis of ALV Baseline System Abstract In this paper, we present the design and analysis of the baseline recognition system used for ETSI Aurora large vocabulary (ALV) evaluation. The experimental paradigm is presented along with the results from a number of experiments designed to minimize the computational requirements for the system. The ALV baseline system achieved a WER of 14.0% on the standard 5K Wall Street Journal task, and required 4 xRT for training and 15 xRT for decoding (on an 800 MHz Pentium processor). It is shown that increasing the sampling frequency from 8 kHz to 16 kHz improves performance significantly only for the noisy test conditions. Utterance detection resulted in significant improvements only on the noisy conditions for the mismatched training conditions. Use of the DSR standard VQ-based compression algorithm did not result in a significant degradation. The model mismatch and microphone mismatch resulted in a relative increase in WER by 300% and 200%, respectively.

3. Page 2 of 15 Performance Analysis of ALV Baseline System Motivation ALV goal was at least a 25% relative improvement over the baseline MFCC front end Develop generic baseline LVCSR system with no front end specific tuning Benchmark the baseline MFCC front end using generic LVCSR system on six focus conditions — sampling frequency reduction, utterance detection, feature-vector compression, model mismatch, microphone variation, and additive noise

4. Page 3 of 15 Performance Analysis of ALV Baseline System ALV Baseline System Development Standard context-dependent cross- word HMM-based system: Acoustic models: state-tied 16-mixture cross-word triphones Language model: WSJ0 5K bigram Search: Viterbi one-best using lexical trees for N-gram cross-word decoding Lexicon: based on CMUlex Performance: 8.3% WER at 85xRT Monophone Modeling State-Tying CD-Triphone Modeling CD-Triphone Modeling Mixture Modeling (16) Training Data

5. Page 4 of 15 Performance Analysis of ALV Baseline System The baseline HMM system used an ETSI standard MFCC-based front end: Zero-mean debiasing 10 ms frame duration 25 ms Hamming window Absolute energy 12 cepstral coefficients First and second derivatives ETSI WI007 Front End Fourier Transf. Analysis Cepstral Analysis Zero-mean and Pre-emphasis Energy / Input Speech

6. Page 5 of 15 Performance Analysis of ALV Baseline System Real-time reduction FactorWERRelative Degrad. Baseline system8.3%N/A Terminal filtering8.4%1% ETSI front end9.6%14% Beam Adj. (15xRT)11.8%23% 16 to 4 mixtures14.1%20% 50% reduction14.9%6% Endpointing14.0%-6% Derived from ISIP WSJ0 system (with CMS) Aurora-4 database terminal filtering resulted in marginal degradation ETSI WI007 front end is 14% worst (no CMS) ALV Baseline System performance: 14.0% Real-time: 4 xRT for training and 15 xRT for decoding on an 800 MHz Pentium

7. Page 6 of 15 Performance Analysis of ALV Baseline System Aurora—4 database Acoustic Training: Derived from 5000 word WSJ0 task TS1 (clean), and TS2 (multi-condition) Clean plus 6 noise conditions Randomly chosen SNR between 10 and 20 dB 2 microphone conditions (Sennheiser and secondary) 2 sample frequencies – 16 kHz and 8 kHz G.712 filtering at 8 kHz and P.341 filtering at 16 kHz Development and Evaluation Sets: Derived from WSJ0 Evaluation and Development sets 14 test sets for each 7 recorded on Sennheiser; 7 on secondary Clean plus 6 noise conditions Randomly chosen SNR between 5 and 15 dB G.712 filtering at 8 kHz and P.341 filtering at 16 kHz

8. Page 7 of 15 Performance Analysis of ALV Baseline System Perfectly-matched condition (TrS1 and TS1): No significant degradation Mismatched conditions (TrS1 and TS2-TS14): No clear trend Matched conditions (TrS2 and TS1-TS14): Significant degradation on noisy conditions recorded on Senn. mic. (TS3-TS8) Sampling Frequency Reduction 0 TS2 TS3TS4TS5TS6TS7 TS1 10 20 30 40 16 kHz 8 kHz

9. Page 8 of 15 Performance Analysis of ALV Baseline System Perfectly-matched condition (TrS1 and TS1): No significant improvement Mismatched conditions (TrS1 and TS2-TS14): Significant improvement due to reduction in insertions Utterance Detection Matched conditions (TrS2 and TS1-TS14): No significant improvement TS9 (Sec., Car) TS2 (Senn., Car) Test Set 54.4% 41.4% Sub. W/O Endpointing 12.3% 3.6% Del. 15.1% 20.1% Ins. 13.0%3.6%40.0% 10.1%15.1%49.1% Sub. With Endpointing Ins.Del.

10. Page 9 of 15 Performance Analysis of ALV Baseline System Feature-vector Compression Sampling frequency specific codebooks — 8 kHz and 16 kHz Perfectly-matched condition (TrS1 and TS1): No significant degradation Mismatched conditions (TrS1 and TS2-TS14): No significant degradation Matched conditions (TrS2 and TS1-TS14): Significant degradation on a few matched conditions – TS3,8,9,10,12 at 16 kHz sampling and TS7,12 at 8 kHz sampling frequency

11. Page 10 of 15 Performance Analysis of ALV Baseline System Model Mismatch Perfectly-matched condition (TrS1 and TS1): Best performance Mismatched conditions (TrS1 and TS2-TS14): Significant degradations Matched conditions (TrS2 and TS1-TS14): Better than mismatched conditions 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 TS2TS3TS4TS5TS6TS7 TrS1 TrS2 TS1 (Clean) TS2TS3TS4TS5TS6TS7 0 10 20 30 40

12. Page 11 of 15 Performance Analysis of ALV Baseline System Microphone Variation Senn. Sec. Train on Sennheiser mic.; evaluate on secondary mic. Perfectly-matched condition (TrS1 and TS1): Optimal performance Mismatched condition (TrS1 and TS8): Significant degradation Matched conditions: Less severe degradation when samples of sec. microphone seen during training 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 TrS1 TrS2

13. Page 12 of 15 Performance Analysis of ALV Baseline System Additive Noise Matched Conditions: Exposing systems to noise and microphone variations (TS2) improves performance TS2TS3TS4TS5TS6TS7 0 10 20 30 40 Mismatched Conditions: Performance degrades on noise condition when systems are trained only on clean data 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 TS2TS3TS4TS5TS6TS7 TrS1 TrS2 TS1 (Clean)

14. Page 13 of 15 Performance Analysis of ALV Baseline System Summary and Conclusions Presented a WSJ0 based LVCSR system that runs at 4xRT for training and 15xRT for decoding on a 800 MHz Pentium Reduction in benchmarking time from 1034 to 203 days Increase in sampling frequency from 8 kHz to 16 kHz results in significant improvement only on matched noisy test conditions Utterance detection resulted in significant improvements only on the noisy conditions for the mismatched training conditions VQ based compression is robust in DSR environment Exposing models to different noisy conditions and microphone conditions improves the speech recognition performance in adverse conditions

15. Page 14 of 15 Performance Analysis of ALV Baseline System Aurora Project Website: recognition toolkit, multi-CPU scripts, database definitions, publications, and performance summary of the baseline MFCC front endAurora Project Website Available Resources Speech Recognition Toolkits: compare front ends to standard approaches using a state of the art ASR toolkitSpeech Recognition Toolkits ETSI DSR Website: reports and front end standardsETSI DSR Website

16. Page 15 of 15 Performance Analysis of ALV Baseline System Brief Bibliography N. Parihar, Performance Analysis of Advanced Front Ends, M.S. Dissertation, Mississippi State University, December 2003.Performance Analysis of Advanced Front Ends N. Parihar, and J. Picone, “An Analysis of the Aurora Large Vocabulary Evaluation,” Eurospeech 2003, pp. 337-340, Geneva, Switzerland, September 2003.An Analysis of the Aurora Large Vocabulary Evaluation N. Parihar and J. Picone, “DSR Front End LVCSR Evaluation - AU/384/02,” Aurora Working Group, European Telecommunications Standards Institute, December 06, 2002.DSR Front End LVCSR Evaluation - AU/384/02 D. Pearce, “Overview of Evaluation Criteria for Advanced Distributed Speech Recognition,” ETSI STQ-Aurora DSR Working Group, October 2001.Overview of Evaluation Criteria for Advanced Distributed Speech Recognition G. Hirsch, “Experimental Framework for the Performance Evaluation of Speech Recognition Front-ends in a Large Vocabulary Task,” ETSI STQ- Aurora DSR Working Group, December 2002.Experimental Framework for the Performance Evaluation of Speech Recognition Front-ends in a Large Vocabulary Task “ETSI ES 201 108 v1.1.2 Distributed Speech Recognition; Front-end Feature Extraction Algorithm; Compression Algorithm,” ETSI, April 2000.ETSI ES 201 108 v1.1.2 Distributed Speech Recognition; Front-end Feature Extraction Algorithm; Compression Algorithm