1 / 13

Modeling pronunciation variation using artificial neural networks for English spontaneous speech

Modeling pronunciation variation using artificial neural networks for English spontaneous speech. Ken Chen and Mark Hasegawa-Johnson. Pronunciation Variability. Manual phonetic transcriptions: TIMIT (14 hours, read speech), ICSI-Switchboard (3.5 hours, spontaneous speech).

herrerar
Download Presentation

Modeling pronunciation variation using artificial neural networks for English spontaneous speech

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Modeling pronunciation variation using artificial neural networks for English spontaneous speech Ken Chen and Mark Hasegawa-Johnson

  2. Pronunciation Variability • Manual phonetic transcriptions: TIMIT (14 hours, read speech), ICSI-Switchboard (3.5 hours, spontaneous speech). • Example: “interesting.” 35 tokens in ICSI-Switchboard; arbitrarily pick 8 of them. Total canonical pronunciations: 0. Total different pronunciations: 8. • iy y ih n t r ih s t iy ng • ix n t r ah s t ih ng • ih dx er s t ix ng • ih t r ih s t ih n • ih t r ih s t iy ng • ix n ch r ih s t ih ng • ih n t r ih s t ih ng • ih n ax r ah s t ih ng • (Not all words have this problem: “newspaper” is always produced canonically)

  3. Why not just use a multi-pronunciation dictionary? • Changes are context-dependent: • “and by = ax m b ay” is likely • “and do = ax m d uw” is unlikely • Unnecessary Ambiguity • The entry “and = ax m” makes “and” and “um” (and “them”) indistinguishable

  4. Predictive Pronunciation ModelingRiley & Ljolje, 1995; Riley et al., 1999; Fukada et al., 1999 Canonical phones: cn r eh n ae n d b ay 1 0 … 0 0 … 0 1 … 0 0 … 0 1 … 0 0 … 0 0 … 0 0 … Canonical feature vectors Estimate PDF p(sn= “m” | sn-d,…,sn-1, cn-d,…,cn+d) 0 0 … 0 0 … 0 1 … 0 0 … Surface feature vectors Surface phones: sn DEL er n ae m DEL b ay

  5. The PDF Estimator: Neural Network Similar to Fukada et al., 1999 1 0 … 0 0 … 0 1 … 0 0 … 0 1 … 0 0 … 0 0 … 0 0 … Feature vectors Hidden layer (28-57 nodes) + + + + Output layer: # nodes = # phones + 1 + + + + + + + + normalize Output nodes: zi = p(sn= i | inputs), z0= p(sn= DEL | inputs)

  6. Phone Labels  Feature Vectors • Indicator Features (Fukada et al.): • dim(vn) = # phones • vn[i] = 1 iff cn=ith phone, vn[i]=0 otherwise • Multivalued Distinctive Features (DFs) (Riley et al.): • vn = [ consonant_manner, consonant_place, vowel_manner, vowel_place ] • consonant_manner: stop, fric, nasal, glide, affricate • consonant_place: lips, blade, body, larynx • Binary Distinctive Features (DFs) • dim(vn) = 15 • vn is fully specified binary distinctive feature vector • feature specifications based on Stevens, 1999

  7. Inference w/binary distinctive features p( sn = DEL )

  8. Prosodic and Auxiliary Features • In all experiments: • Phone position in word (normalized to [0,1]) • Phone position in syllable (onset vs. rhyme) • Lexical stress (binary) • Function word vs. content word (binary) • Prosodically transcribed data (Yoon et al., ICSLP 2004): • Pitch Accent (binary: presence vs. absence)

  9. Test Metric: Cross Entropy • H(T) = – (1/N) Sn log p( sn | context ) • Context includes • Canonical phones • Surface phones • 4 Auxiliary features (not pitch accent) • Context computed using minimum-Levenshtein-distance alignment • Sum is over all phones, n, in TIMIT/TEST • Baseline: H(T) computed using unigram pronunciation model, p( sn | cn )

  10. Results * Results in this row are from Riley et al., Speech Communication, 1999. Every effort has been made to ensure that the experiments are comparable, but the usual caveats apply.

  11. Results: with Prosody • Insufficient prosodically transcribed, phonetically transcribed data available for both training and test corpora • Testing on the training corpus: • Inclusion of pitch accent as an auxiliary feature reduces cross-entropy by 20% relative to nearly identical pronunciation model without pitch accent • Small training corpus, so significance is unclear

  12. Results: Entropy of Pronunciation Model on Training Data, as a function of NN Training Epoch,with p (pitch accent), and without p

  13. Conclusions • Neural network can learn to predict pronunciation with low cross-entropy • Binary distinctive features (DF) with 3-phoneme context give best performance, but • Difference between binary DF and indicator feature encodings is not statistically significant • Binary DF encoding leads to overtraining when presented with a 5-phoneme context • Prosodic features: results are promising, but data are sparse

More Related