1. HIWIRE MEETING Paris, February 11, 2005 JOSÉ C. SEGURA LUNA GSTC UGR

2. 2 HIWIRE Meeting – Paris, 11 February, 2005José C. Segura Luna Schedule  AURORA 4 HTK-based setup  Baseline results (AURORA databases)  MFCC with C0 and CMN  AFE  Additional results  CMVN  HEQ  Work in progress  WP1: Improved HEQ  WP2: User independence & robustness

3. 3 HIWIRE Meeting – Paris, 11 February, 2005José C. Segura Luna AURORA 4 HTK-based setup  ETSI AURORA 4 evaluation  Baseline system based on ISIP speech recognition system  Main drawbacks:  CPU time for experiments (specially for decoding)  Scripts are excessively complex to use  Described in:  N. Parihar and J. Picone, "DSR Front End LVCSR Evaluation - AU/384/02," Aurora Working Group, ETSI, December 06, 2002.  G. Hirsch, "Experimental Framework for the Performance Evaluation of Speech Recognition Front-ends on a Large Vocabulary Task, Version 2.0," ETSI STQ-Aurora DSR Working Group, November 19, 2002.

4. 4 HIWIRE Meeting – Paris, 11 February, 2005José C. Segura Luna AURORA 4 HTK-based setup  HTK-based setup for AURORA 4 evaluations  Features  12MFCC + C0 (CMS) + Δ + Δ Δ  Cross-word tree-based tied-state tri-phones  3 states / 6 Gaussians per state  Back-off bi-gram language model  Same as used in ISIP setup  Pruning is performed as in ISIP setup  Available for partners at: http://www.hiwire.orghttp://www.hiwire.org

5. 5 HIWIRE Meeting – Paris, 11 February, 2005José C. Segura Luna AURORA 4 HTK-based setup  Performance comparisons (HTK-based setup vs. ISIP)  Training clean models from scratch takes 3h52‘ on a 2.66GHz Word error rateDecoding time (s) ISIPHTKISIPHTK Test 01 (clean data) 16.2%13.22% 7580 (6.16  RT) 3428 (2.78  RT) Test 02 (car noise) 49.6%24.68% 22195 (18.03  RT) 8002 (6.50  RT) Test 03 (babble noise) 62.2%46.00% 33203 (26.9  RT) 13747 (11.17  RT) 12 MFCCs + C0 (CMS) +  + 

6. 6 HIWIRE Meeting – Paris, 11 February, 2005José C. Segura Luna AURORA 4 Baseline results

7. 7 HIWIRE Meeting – Paris, 11 February, 2005José C. Segura Luna AURORA 4 Additional results

8. 8 HIWIRE Meeting – Paris, 11 February, 2005José C. Segura Luna Baseline results  HIWIRE baseline results: 12 MFCCs + C0 (CMS) +  +  AURORA 2

9. 9 HIWIRE Meeting – Paris, 11 February, 2005José C. Segura Luna Baseline results  AFE AURORA 2

10. 10 HIWIRE Meeting – Paris, 11 February, 2005José C. Segura Luna Baseline results  AURORA 3 word error rates

11. 11 HIWIRE Meeting – Paris, 11 February, 2005José C. Segura Luna Work in progress (WP1)  Improved equalization  Modeling Speech & Noise separately  First results with Gaussian models Very promising on AURORA 4 Need to be evaluated on AURORA 2 & 3  Next Use more detailed / nonparametric models Incorporate dynamic features

12. 12 HIWIRE Meeting – Paris, 11 February, 2005José C. Segura Luna Preliminary results

13. 13 HIWIRE Meeting – Paris, 11 February, 2005José C. Segura Luna Work in progress (WP1)  VAD & Noise reduction  Baseline evaluations AURORA 2 & 3 already done AURORA 4 to be ready on June  Integration with parametric techniques Speech & Noise equalization

14. 14 HIWIRE Meeting – Paris, 11 February, 2005José C. Segura Luna Work in progress (WP2)  HEQ-based user robustness  Ready for AURORA 4  Working in WSJ1 baseline  HEQ-based user adaptation  MLLR baseline  Estimation of MLLR transformations using HEQ  Working in WSJ1 baseline

15. HIWIRE MEETING Paris, February 11, 2005 JOSÉ C. SEGURA LUNA GSTC UGR