Cited by 1,310Speech Recognition and SynthesisSpeech and Audio ProcessingSpeech and dialogue systems

Improving deep neural networks for LVCSR using rectified linear units and dropout

Dahl, George E., Sainath, Tara N., Hinton, Geoffrey E.·2013·2013 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing

Abstract

Recently, pre-trained deep neural networks (DNNs) have outperformed traditional acoustic models based on Gaussian mixture models (GMMs) on a variety of large vocabulary speech recognition benchmarks. Deep neural nets have also achieved excellent results on various computer vision tasks using a random “dropout” procedure that drastically improves generalization error by randomly omitting a fraction of the hidden units in all layers. Since dropout helps avoid over-fitting, it has also been successful on a small-scale phone recognition task using larger neural nets. However, training deep neural net acoustic models for large vocabulary speech recognition takes a very long time and dropout is likely to only increase training time. Neural networks with rectified linear unit (ReLU) non-linearities have been highly successful for computer vision tasks and proved faster to train than standard sigmoid units, sometimes also improving discriminative performance. In this work, we show on a 50-hour English Broadcast News task that modified deep neural networks using ReLUs trained with dropout during frame level training provide an 4.2% relative improvement over a DNN trained with sigmoid units, and a 14.4% relative improvement over a strong GMM/HMM system. We were able to obtain our results with minimal human hyper-parameter tuning using publicly available Bayesian optimization code.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/icassp.2013.6639346

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dahl, G. E., Sainath, T. N., & Hinton, G. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • IBM (United States) (US)
Venue
2013 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2013-05
Pages
8609-8613
ISSN
1520-6149 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2062227835
Cited by
1,310
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 82 · 2022: 118 · 2021: 179 · 2020: 199 · 2019: 179 · 2018: 137 · 2017: 87 · 2016: 92 · 2015: 79 · 2014: 58 · 2013: 8
FWCI
51.02
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech Recognition and Synthesis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Speech and Audio Processing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
Keywords
large vocabulary speech recognition, deep neural network, rectified linear units, dropout, acoustic modeling, broadcast news, overfitting, Bayesian optimization, hyperparameter optimization

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