A Survey of Boosting HMM Acoustic Model Training

1. A Survey of Boosting HMM Acoustic Model Training

2. Introduction • The No Free Lunch Theorem states that • There is no single learning algorithm that in any domain always induces the most accurate learner • Learning is an ill-posed problem and with finite data, each algorithm converges to a different solution and fails under different circumstances • Though the performance of a learner may be fine-tuned, but still there are instances on which even the best learner is not accurate enough • The idea is.. • There may be another learner that is accurate on these instances • By suitably combining multiple learners then, accuracy can be improved

3. Introduction • Since there is no point in combining learners that always make similar decisions • The aim is to be able to find a set of base-learners who differ in their decisions so that they will complement each other • There are different ways the multiple base-learners are combined to generate the final outputs: • Multiexpert combination methods • Voting and its variants • Mixture of experts • Stacked generalization • Multistage combination methods • Cascading

4. Voting • The simplest way to combine multiple classifiers • which corresponds to taking a linear combination of the learners • this is also known as ensembles and linear opinion pools • The name voting comes from its use in classification • if , called plurality voting • if , called majority voting

5. Bagging • Bagging is a voting method whereby base-learners are made different by training them over slightly different training sets • is done by bootstrap • where given a training set X of size N, we draw N instances randomly from X with replacement • In bagging, generating complementary base-learners is left to chance and to the instability of the learning method • A learning algorithm is an unstable algorithm if small changes in the training set causes a large difference in the generated learner • decision trees, multilayer perceptrons, condensed nearest neighbor • Bagging is short for Bootstrap aggregating Breiman, L. 1996. “Bagging Predictors.”Machine Learning 26, 123-140

6. X1 X3 X2 d1 d2 d3 Boosting • In boosting, we actively try to generate complementary base-learners by training the next learner on the mistakes of the previous learners • The original boosting algorithms (Schapire 1990) combines three weak learners to generate a strong learner • In the sense of the probably approximately correct (PAC) learning model • Disadvantage • It requires a very large training sample Schapire, R.E. 1990. “The Strength of Weak Learnability.”Machine Learning 5, 197-227

7. AdaBoost • AdaBoost, short for adaptive boosting, uses the same training set over and over and thus need not be large and it can also combine an arbitrary number of base-learners, not three • The idea is to modify the probabilities of drawing the instances as a function of the error • The probability of a correctly classified instance is decreased, then a new sample set is drawn from the original sample according to these modified probabilities • That focuses more on instances misclassified by previous learner • Schapire et al. explain that the success of AdaBoost is due to its property of increasing the margin • Schapire. et al. 1998. “Boosting the Margin: A New Explanation for Effectiveness of Voting Methods”Annals of Statistics 26, 1651-1686 Freund and Schapire. 1996. “Experiments with a New Boosting Algorithm” In ICML 13, 148-156

8. AdaBoost.M2 (Freund and Schapire, 1997) Freund and Schapire. 1997. “A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting”Journal of Computer and System Sciences 55, 119-139

9. Evolution of Boosting Algo. 2 4 ICASSP 04C. Dimitrakakis & S. Bengio“Boosting HMMs with An Application to Speech Recognition” ICSLP 04R. Zhang & A. Rudnicky“A Frame Level Boosting Training Scheme for Acoustic Modeling” ICSLP 04R. Zhang & A. Rudnicky“Apply N-Best List Re-Ranking to Acoustic Model Combinations of Boosting Training” E ICASSP 00G. Zweig & M. Padmanabhan“Boosting Gaussian Mixtures in An LVCSR System” 3 ICSLP 04R. Zhang & A. Rudnicky“Optimizing Boosting with Discriminative Criteria” 5 EuroSpeech 05R. Zhang et al.“Investigations on Ensemble Based Semi-Supervised Acoustic Model Training” ICASSP 99H. Schwenk“Using Boosting to Improve a Hybrid HMM/Neural Network Speech Recognizer” 1999 1996 2002 2003 1997 2000 2004 2005 2006 6 ICSLP 06R. Zhang & A. Rudnicky “Investigations of Issues for Using Multiple Acoustic Models to Improve CSR” B ICSLP 96G. Cook & T. Robinson“Boosting the Performance of Connectionist LVSR” Neural Network SpeechCom 06 C. Meyer & H. Schramm “Boosting HMM Acoustic Models in LVCSR” 0 ICASSP 03R. Zhang & A. Rudnicky“Improving the Performance of An LVCSR System Through Ensembles of Acoustic Models” GMM EuroSpeech 97G. Cook et al.“Ensemble Methods for Connectionist Acoustic Modeling” HMM 1 EuroSpeech 03 R. Zhang & A. Rudnicky “Comparative Study of Boosting and Non-Boosting Training for Constructing Ensembles of Acoustic Models” D ICASSP 02C. Meyer“Utterance-Level Boosting of HMM Speech Recognition” A ICASSP 02 I. Zitouni et al. “Combination of Boosting and Discriminative Training for Natural Language Call Steering Systems”

10. Improving The Performance of An LVCSR System Through Ensembles of Acoustic Models ICASSP 2003 Rong Zhang and Alexander I. Rudnicky Language Technologies Institute, School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University

11. Bagging vs. Boosting • Bagging • In each round, bagging randomly selects a number of examples from the original training set, and produces a new single classifier based on the selected subset • The final classifier is built by choosing the hypothesis best agreed on by single classifiers • Boosting • In boosting, the single classifiers are iteratively trained in a fashion such that hard-to-classify examples are given increasing emphasis • A parameter that measures the classifier’s importance is determined in respect of its classification accuracy • The final hypothesis is the weighted majority vote from the single classifiers

12. Algorithms • The first algorithm is based on the intuition that an incorrectly recognized utterance should receive more attention in training • If the weight of an utterance is 2.6, we first add two copies of the utterance to the new training set, and then add its third copy with probability 0.6

13. Algorithms • The exponential increase in the size of training set is a severe problem for algorithm 1 • Algorithm 2 is proposed to address this problem

14. Algorithms • In algorithm 1 and 2, there is no concern to measure how important a model is relative to others • Good model should play more important role than bad one

15. Experiments • Corpus : CMU Communicator system • Experimental results :

16. Comparative Study of Boosting and Non-Boosting Training for Constructing Ensembles of Acoustic Models Rong Zhang and Alexander I. Rudnicky Language Technologies Institute, CMU EuroSpeech 2003

17. Non-Boosting method • Bagging • is a commonly used method in machine learning field • randomly selects a number of examples from the original training set and produces a new single classifier • in this paper, we call it a non-Boosting method • Based on the intuition • The misrecognized utterance should receive more attention in the successive training

18. Algorithms λ is a parameter that prevents the size of the training set from being too large.

19. Experiments • The corpus: • Training set: 31248 utterances; Test set: 1689 utterances

20. A Frame Level Boosting Training Scheme for Acoustic Modeling ICSLP 2004 Rong Zhang and Alexander I. Rudnicky Language Technologies Institute, School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University

21. Introduction • In the current Boosting algorithm, utterance is the basic unit used for acoustic model training • Our analysis shows that there are two notable weaknesses in this setting.. • First, the objective function of current Boosting algorithm is designed to minimize utterance error instead of word error • Second, in the current algorithm, an utterance is treated as a unity for resample • This paper proposes a frame level Boosting training scheme for acoustic modeling to address these two problems

22. Frame Level Boosting Training Scheme • The metrics that we will use in Boosting training is the frame level conditional probability -----(word level) • Objective function : is the pseudo loss for frame t, which describes the degree of confusion of this frame for recognition

23. Frame Level Boosting Training Scheme • Training Scheme: • How to resample the frame level training data? • to duplicate for times and creates a new utterance for acoustic model training

24. Experiments • Corpus : CMU Communicator system • Experimental results :

25. Boosting HMM acoustic models in large vocabulary speech recognition Carsten Meyer, Hauke Schramm Philips Research Laboratories, Germany SPEECH COMMUNICATION 2006

26. Utterance approach for boosting in ASR • An intuitive way of applying boosting to HMM speech recognition is at the utterance level • Thus, boosting is used to improve upon an initial ranking of candidate word sequences • The utterance approach has two advantages: • First, it is directly related to the sentence error rate • Second, it is computationally much less expensive than boosting applied at the level of feature vectors

27. Utterance approach for boosting in ASR • In utterance approach, we define the input patterns to be the sequence of feature vectors corresponding to the entire utterance • denotes one possible candidate word sequence of the speech recognizer, being the correct word sequence for utterance • The a posteriori confidence measure is calculated on basis of the N-best list for utterance

28. Utterance approach for boosting in ASR • Based on the confidence values and AdaBoost.M2 algorithm, we calculate an utterance weight for each training utterance • Subsequently, the weight are used in maximum likelihood and discriminative training of Gaussian mixture model

29. Utterance approach for boosting in ASR • Some problem encountered when apply it to large-scale continuous speech application: • The N-best lists of reasonable length (e.g. N=100) generally contain only a tiny fraction of the possible classification results • This has two consequences: • In training, it may lead to sub-optimal utterance weights • In recognition, Eq. (1) cannot be applied appropriately

30. Utterance approach for CSR--Training • Training • A convenient strategy to reduce the complexity of the classification task and to provide more meaningful N-best lists consists in “chopping” of the training data • For long sentences, it simply means to insert additional sentence break symbols at silence intervals with a given minimum length • This reduces the number of possible classifications of each sentence “fragment”, so that the resulting N-best lists should cover a sufficiently large fraction of hypotheses

31. Utterance approach for CSR--Decoding • Decoding: lexical approach for model combination • A single pass decoding setup, where the combination of the boosted acoustic models is realized at a lexical level • The basic idea is to add a new pronunciation model by “replicating” the set of phoneme symbols in each boosting iteration (e.g. by appending the suffix “_t” to the phoneme symbol) • The new phoneme symbols, represent the underlying acoustic model of boosting iteration “au”, “au_1” ,“au_2”,…

32. Utterance approach for CSR--Decoding • Decoding: lexical approach for model combination (cont.) • Add to each phonetic transcription in the decoding lexicon a new transcription using the corresponding phoneme set • Use the reweighted training data to train the boosted classifier • Decoding is then performed using the extended lexicon and the set of acoustic models weighted by their unigram prior probabilities which are estimated on the training data “sic_a”, “sic_1 a_1” ,… weighted summation

33. In more detail Training Training corpus “_t” Boosting Iteration t Mt phonetically transcribed training corpus(Mt) ML/MMI training pronunciation variant “sic_a”, “sic_1 a_1” ,… Decoding Lexicon M1,M2,…,Mt unweighted model combination weighted model combination extend

34. In more detail

35. Weighted model combination • Word level model combination

36. Experiments • Isolated word recognition • Telephone-bandwidth large vocabulary isolated word recognition • SpeechDat(II) German meterial • Continuous speech recognition • Professional dictation and Switchboard

37. Isolated word recognition • Database: • Training corpus: consists of 18k utterances (4.3h) of city, company, first and family names • Evaluations: • LILI test corpus: 10k single word utterances (3.5h); 10k words lexicon; (matched conditions) • Names corpus: an inhouse collection of 676 utterances (0.5h); two different decoding lexica: 10k lex, 190k lex; (acoustic conditions are matched, whereas there is a lexical mismatch) • Office corpus: 3.2k utterances (1.5h), recorded over microphone in clean conditions; 20k lexicon; (an acoustic mismatch to the training conditions)

38. Isolated word recognition • Boosting ML models

39. Isolated word recognition • Combining boosting and discriminative training • The experiments in isolated word recognition showed that boosting may improve the best test error rates

40. Continuous speech recognition • Database • Professional dictation • An inhouse data collection of real-life recordings of medical reports • The acoustic training corpus consists of about 58h of data • Evaluations were carried out on two test corpora: • Development corpus consists of 5.0h of speech • Evaluation corpus consists of 3.3h of speech • Switchboard • Consisting of spontaneous conversations recorded over telephone line; 57h(73h) of male(female) • Evaluations corpus: • Containing about 1h(0.5h) of male(female)

41. Continuous speech recognition • Professional dictation:

42. Switchboard:

43. Conclusions • In this paper, a boosting approach which can be applied to any HMM based speech recognizer was be presented and evaluated • The increased recognizer complexity and thus decoding effort of the boosted systems is a major drawback compared to other training techniques like discriminative training

44. Probably Approximately Correct Learning • We would like our hypothesis to be approximately correct, namely, that the error probability be bounded by some value • We also would like to be confident in our hypothesis in that we want to know that our hypothesis will be correct most of the time, so we want to be probably correct as well • Given a class, , and examples drawn from some unknown but fixed probability distribution, such that with probability at least , the hypothesis has error at most , for arbitrary and

45. Probably Approximately Correct Learning • How many training examples N should we have, such that with probability at least 1 ‒ δ, h has error at most ε ? most specific hypothesis, S most general hypothesis, G • Each strip is at most ε/4 • Pr that we miss a strip 1‒ ε/4 • Pr that N instances miss a strip (1 ‒ ε/4)N • Pr that N instances miss 4 strips 4(1 ‒ ε/4)N • 4(1 ‒ ε/4)N ≤ δ and (1 ‒ x)≤exp( ‒ x) • 4exp(‒ εN/4) ≤ δ and N ≥ (4/ε)log(4/δ) h ÎH, between S and G is consistent and make up the version space