Edit Distance Comparison Confidence Measure for Speech Recognition
A new possible confidence measure for automatic speech recognition is presented along with results of tests where they were applied. A classical method based on comparing the strongest hypotheses with an average of a few next hypotheses was used as a ground truth. Details of our own method based on comparison of edit distances are depicted with results of tests. It was found useful for spoken dialogue system as a module asking to repeat a phrase or declaring that it was not recognised. The method was designed for Polish language, which is morphologically rich.
KeywordsSpeech recognition decisions Polish
The project was funded by the National Science Centre allocated on the basis of a decision DEC-2011/03/D/ST6/00914.
- 1.Guo G, Huang C, Jiang H, Wang RH (2004) A comparative study on various confidence measures in large vocabulary speech recognition. Proceedings of international symposium on Chinese spoken language, pp 9–12Google Scholar
- 4.Molina C, Yoma N, Huenupan F, Garreton C, Wuth J (2010) Maximum entropy-based reinforcement learning using a condense measure in speech recognition for telephone speech. IEEE Trans Audio, Speech Lang Proc 18(5):1041–1052Google Scholar
- 5.Ziółko B, Jadczyk T, Skurzok D, Ziółko M (2012) Confidence measure by substring comparison for automatic speech recognition. ICALIP, ShanghaiGoogle Scholar
- 10.Seigel M, Woodland P (2011) Combining information sources for confidence estimation with crf models. Proceedings of InterSpeechGoogle Scholar
- 11.Ziółko M, Gałka J, Ziółko B, Jadczyk T, Skurzok D, Mąsior M (2011) Automatic speech recognition system dedicated for Polish. Proceedings of Interspeech, FlorenceGoogle Scholar
- 12.Nouza J, Zdansky J, David P, Cerva P, Kolorenc J, Nejedlova D (2005) Fully automated system for Czech spoken broadcast transcription with very large (300 k+) lexicon. Proceedings of InterSpeech, pp 1681–1684Google Scholar
- 15.Grocholewski S (1998) First database for spoken Polish. Proceedings of international conference on language resources and evaluation, Grenada, pp 1059–1062Google Scholar