Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Hoang-Doan H. Vo
dblp:82/11362
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 1995
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Speech recognition and synthesis · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural language and speech › Speech recognition and synthesis
automatic speech recognition |
0.0 | 1 | 1995 | A comparison of signal processing front ends for automatic word recognition · IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 1995 |
Natural language and speech › Speech recognition and synthesis
front-end processing |
0.0 | 1 | 1995 | A comparison of signal processing front ends for automatic word recognition · IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 1995 |
Natural language and speech › Speech recognition and synthesis › acoustic feature extraction
cepstral features |
0.0 | 1 | 1995 | A comparison of signal processing front ends for automatic word recognition · IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 1995 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
linear predictive coding · 0.0feature combination · 0.0auditory modeling · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1995 | A comparison of signal processing front ends for automatic word recognitionabstractThis paper compares the word error rate of a speech recognizer using several signal processing front ends based on auditory properties. Front ends were compared with a control mel filter bank (MFB) based cepstral front end in clean speech and with speech degraded by noise and spectral variability, using the TI-105 isolated word database. MFB recognition error rates ranged from 0.5 to 26.9% in noise, depending on the SNR, and auditory models provided error rates as much as four percentage points lower. With speech degraded by linear filtering, MFB error rates ranged from 0.5 to 3.1%, and the reduction in error rates provided by auditory models was less than 0.5 percentage points. Some earlier studies that demonstrated considerably more improvement with auditory models used linear predictive coding (LPC) based control front ends. This paper shows that MFB cepstra significantly outperform LPC cepstra under noisy conditions. Techniques using an optimal linear combination of features for data reduction were also evaluated.> Charles R. Jankowski Jr., Hoang-Doan H. Vo, Richard Lippmann |
IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. | 2 |