Upload
dalton
View
29
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Chania Meeting – May 2007. Advances in WP1. www.loquendo.com. Summary. Test on Hiwire DB with denoising methods developed in the project: Wiener SNR dep. Spectral Subtraction Ephraim-Malah SNR dep. Spectral Attenuation Loquendo FE – UGR PEQ Integration Details Results on Hiwire db. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Advances in WP1
Chania Meeting – May 2007
www.loquendo.com
2
Summary
• Test on Hiwire DB with denoising methods developed in the project:– Wiener SNR dep. Spectral Subtraction– Ephraim-Malah SNR dep. Spectral Attenuation
• Loquendo FE – UGR PEQ Integration– Details– Results on Hiwire db
HIWIRE DB Test
Chania Meeting – May 2007
www.loquendo.com
4
Test Conditions
• Test on the last 50 utterances of each speaker (50-99)• The first 50 utterances of each speaker (0-50) left for
development or adaptation• Four noise conditions:
– Clean
– Low Noise (SNR = 10 dB)
– Medium Noise (SNR = 5 dB)
– High Noise (SNR = -5 dB)
• 4049 utterances for each condition, from 81 speakers of 4 nationalities
5
HMM-ANN Models
Two HMM-ANN models have been trained:
• Telephone 8 kHz: trained with a large telephone corpus (LDC Macrophone + SpeechDat Mobile)
• Microphone 16 kHz: trained with a collection of microphone corpora (timit, wsj0-1, vehic1us-ch0)
6
Test Results
Models Denoising method
Noise Condition AVG E.R. %
Clean LN MN HN
Telephone
8 kHz(Macrophone)
No Den 88.4 51.1 27.3 2.8 42.4 -
WIE 88.3 70.0 54.1 16.3 57.2 25.7
EM 88.3 74.7 62.0 20.1 61.3 32.8
Microphone 16kHz
(timit-wsj0-1-vehic1us)
No Den 90.5 49.1 27.5 5.0 43.0 -
WIE 90.4 68.5 51.1 14.5 56.2 23.2
EM 90.2 71.9 55.0 16.6 58.4 27.0
7
Test Results
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
No Den WIE EM No Den WIE EM
Telephone 8 kHz Microphone 16kHz
wo
rd a
ccu
racy
% Clean
LN
MN
HN
AVG
8
Comments on Results
• The 16 kHz models are more accurate on clean speech (90.5% vs. 88.4%)
• Ephraim-Malah noise reduction always outperforms Wiener spectral subtraction (32.8% vs. 25.7% and 25.7% vs. 21.8% E.R.).
Loquendo FE UGR PEQintegration
Chania Meeting – May 2007
www.loquendo.com
10
PEQ Integration (Loquendo & UGR)
Loquendo FE
UGR PEQ
Loquendo ASR
Denoise
(Power Spectrum level)
Feature Normalization
(Frame -13 coeff- level)
Phoneme-based
Models
11
PEQ effects
12
PEQ Results
Models Den. Norm. Noise Condition AVG
Clean LN MN HN
wsj0 16 kHz NO NO 89.3 44.2 20.9 2.0 39.1
wsj0 16 kHz E.M. NO 89.2 69.6 53.7 15.4 57.0
wsj0 16 kHz NO PEQ 85.7 67.2 50.4 14.7 54.5
wsj0 16 kHz E.M. PEQ 85.2 73.7 59.5 19.8 59.5
The HMM-ANN models employed are:
• WSJ0 models
• WSJ0 models + E.M. denoising
• WSJ0 models + E.M. denoising + PEQ
13
EM Denoise and PEQ
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Clean LN MN HN AVG
Noise Conditions
wo
rd a
ccu
racy
%
NO-DEN NO-PEQ DEN NO-PEQ NO-DEN PEQ DEN PEQ
14
Comments on EM denoising - PEQ
• On noisy speech (LN, MN, HN):– both EM denoising and PEQ obtain a good improvement
– best results are obtained when adding the effects of EM de-noising and PEQ normalization.
• On clean speech:– EM denoising does not decrease performances
– PEQ normalization slightly decreases performances
• PEQ is very useful in mismatched conditions
• can (slightly) decrease performances in matched conditions (e.g. clean speech)
15
Test on TTS American Voice (Dave)
Models Dave Hiwire DB
clean
Telephone 8 kHz
(Macrophone)98.9 88.3
Micro 16 kHz (wsj0) 99.7 88.1
• We have used the American voice DAVE of Loquendo TTS to read the 4049 sentences of the Hiwire DB
• The great difference in results is due to non-native pronounce
• Es. “Range Forty” pronounced
• by Dave
• by a French speaker
• by a Greek speaker
16
WP1: Workplan
• Selection of suitable benchmark databases; (m6)
• Completion of LASR baseline experimentation of Spectral Subtraction (Wiener SNR
dependent) (m12)
• Discriminative VAD (training+AURORA3 testing) (m16)
• Exprimentation of Spectral Attenuation rule
(Ephraim-Malah SNR dependent) (m21)
• Preliminary results on spectral subtraction and HEQ techniques (m24)
• Integration of denoising and normalization techniques (PEQ) (m33)