Advertisement

The Rich Transcription 2005 Spring Meeting Recognition Evaluation

  • Jonathan G. Fiscus
  • Nicolas Radde
  • John S. Garofolo
  • Audrey Le
  • Jerome Ajot
  • Christophe Laprun
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3869)

Abstract

This paper presents the design and results of the Rich Transcription Spring 2005 (RT-05S) Meeting Recognition Evaluation. This evaluation is the third in a series of community-wide evaluations of language technologies in the meeting domain. For 2005, four evaluation tasks were supported. These included a speech-to-text (STT) transcription task and three diarization tasks: “Who Spoke When”, “Speech Activity Detection”, and “Source Localization.” The latter two were first-time experimental proof-of-concept tasks and were treated as “dry runs”. For the STT task, the lowest word error rate for the multiple distant microphone condition was 30.0% which represented an impressive 33% relative reduction from the best result obtained in the last such evaluation – the Rich Transcription Spring 2004 Meeting Recognition Evaluation. For the diarization “Who Spoke When” task, the lowest diarization error rate was 18.56% which represented a 19% relative reduction from that of RT-04S.

Keywords

Word Error Rate Microphone Array Meeting Participant Linguistic Data Consortium Reference Word 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fiscus, et al.: Results of the Fall 2004 STT and MDE Evaluation. In: RT-04F Evaluation Workshop Proceedings, November 7-10 (2004) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garofolo, et al.: The Rich Transcription 2004 Spring Meeting Recognition Evaluation. In: ICASSP 2004 Meeting Recognition Workshop, May 17 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Spring 2005 (RT-05S) Rich Transcription Meeting Recognition Evaluation Plan (2005), http://www.nist.gov/speech/tests/rt/rt2005/spring/rt05s-meeting-eval-plan-V1.pdf
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    LDC Meeting Recording Transcription, http://www.ldc.upenn.edu/Projects/Transcription/NISTMeet
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Janin, A., Ang, J., Bhagat, S., Dhillon, R., Edwards, J., Macias-Guarasa, J., Morgan, N., Peskin, B., Shriberg, E., Stolcke, A., Wooters, C., Wrede, B.: The ICSI Meeting Project: Resources and Research. In: NIST ICASSP 2004 Meeting Recognition Workshop, Montreal (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garofolo, J.S., Laprun, C.D., Michel, M., Stanford, V.M., Tabassi, E.: The NIST Meeting Room Pilot Corpus. In: LREC 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    The ISL Meeting Corpus: The Impact of Meeting Type on Speech Style, Susanne Burger, Victoria MacLaren, Hua Yu, ICSLP 2002 (2002) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huang, Z., Harper, M.P.: Speech Activity Detection on Multichannels of Meeting Recordings. In: Proceedings from the RT 2005 Workshop at MLML 2005 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan G. Fiscus
    • 1
  • Nicolas Radde
    • 1
  • John S. Garofolo
    • 1
  • Audrey Le
    • 1
  • Jerome Ajot
    • 1
  • Christophe Laprun
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.National Institute of Standards and TechnologyGaithersburgUSA
  2. 2.Systems Plus, Inc.RockvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations