Cited by 472Speech Recognition and SynthesisSpeech and Audio ProcessingSpeech and dialogue systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Microsoft 2017 Conversational Speech Recognition System

Open access
Xiong, W., Wu, L., Alleva, F., Droppo, J., Huang, X., Stolcke, A.·2018·2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)

Abstract

We describe the latest version of Microsoft's conversational speech recognition system for the Switchboard and CallHome domains. The system adds a CNN-BLSTM acoustic model to the set of model architectures we combined previously, and includes character-based and dialog session aware LSTM language models in rescoring. For system combination we adopt a two-stage approach, whereby acoustic model posteriors are first combined at the senone/frame level, followed by a word-level voting via confusion networks. We also added another language model rescoring step following the confusion network combination. The resulting system yields a 5.1% word error rate on the NIST 2000 Switchboard test set, and 9.8% on the CallHome subset.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/icassp.2018.8461870

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 60 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. 0, The Microsoft Cognition Toolkit (CNTK)
  2. xiong, 2017, Conversational session-level language modeling with LSTMs, Submitted to IEEE ICASSP-2018

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 464

Metadata

Authors
Xiong, W., Wu, L., Alleva, F., Droppo, J., Huang, X., & Stolcke, A.
Affiliations
Microsoft (United States) (US)
Venue
2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2018-04
Pages
5934-5938
ISSN
1520-6149 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2916979304
Cited by
472
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 72 · 2020: 96 · 2019: 103 · 2018: 35
FWCI
30.44
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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
conversational speech recognition, switchboards, CALLHOME, LSTM language models, confusion networks, system combination, word error rate

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