CiwGAN and fiwGAN: Encoding information in acoustic data to model lexical learning with Generative Adversarial Networks
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
How can deep neural networks encode information that corresponds to words in human speech into raw acoustic data? This paper proposes two neural network architectures for modeling unsupervised lexical learning from raw acoustic inputs: ciwGAN (Categorical InfoWaveGAN) and fiwGAN (Featural InfoWaveGAN). These combine Deep Convolutional GAN architecture for audio data (WaveGAN; Donahue et al., 2019) with the information theoretic extension of GAN - InfoGAN (Chen et al., 2016) - and propose a new latent space structure that can model featural learning simultaneously with a higher level classification and allows for a very low-dimension vector representation of lexical items. In addition to the Generator and Discriminator networks, the architectures introduce a network that learns to retrieve latent codes from generated audio outputs. Lexical learning is thus modeled as emergent from an architecture that forces a deep neural network to output data such that unique information is retrievable from its acoustic outputs. The networks trained on lexical items from the TIMIT corpus learn to encode unique information corresponding to lexical items in the form of categorical variables in their latent space. By manipulating these variables, the network outputs specific lexical items. The network occasionally outputs innovative lexical items that violate training data, but are linguistically interpretable and highly informative for cognitive modeling and neural network interpretability. Innovative outputs suggest that phonetic and phonological representations learned by the network can be productively recombined and directly paralleled to productivity in human speech: a fiwGAN network trained on suit and dark outputs innovative start, even though it never saw start or even a [st] sequence in the training data. We also argue that setting latent featural codes to values well beyond training range results in almost categorical generation of prototypical lexical items and reveals underlying values of each latent code. Probing deep neural networks trained on well understood dependencies in speech bears implications for latent space interpretability and understanding how deep neural networks learn meaningful representations, as well as potential for unsupervised text-to-speech generation in the GAN framework.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Similar successes in performance and emergent structure have been shown in other linguistic domains, including emergent phonological structure, productive generation of morphologically complex neologisms, and rich lexical semantic information.
“But similar successes, both in performance and emergent structure, have been shown in other linguistic domains (e.g., emergent phonological structure [72], productive generation of morphologically complex neologisms [73], rich lexical semantic information [74], etc.).”
From Dissociating language and thought in large language models (2024) · cites this paper as [72]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Vector-Quantized Autoregressive Predictive Coding
Chung, Y.-A., Tang, H., & Glass, J. (2020) · Interspeech 2020 · doi:10.21437/interspeech.2020-1228 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dissociating language and thought in large language models
Mahowald, K., Ivanova, A. A., Blank, I. A., Kanwisher, N., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Fedorenko, E. (2024) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2024.01.011 · Cited by 345 · see citing works
- Authors
- Beguš, G.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Corresponding author
- Beguš, Gašper
- ORCID
- Beguš, Gašper
- Venue
- Neural Networks
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-07
- Volume
- 139
- Pages
- 305-325
- ISSN
- 0893-6080 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3033010920
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5
- FWCI
- 2.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Neural Networks (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- University of California Berkeley
- University of Washington
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech Recognition and Synthesis
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
- Keywords
- vocabulary acquisition, unsupervised learning, generative adversarial networks, WaveGAN, InfoGAN, latent space, acoustic data, TIMIT corpus, phonological representation, phonetic representation, neural network interpretability, cognitive modeling
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Acoustics, Natural Language Processing, Speech Recognition Software
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review