# Difference between revisions of "contributions on Context Adaptive Training with Factorized Decision Trees for HMM-Based Speech Synthesis"

(→MLLR based approach) |
(→State clustering) |
||

Line 78: | Line 78: | ||

\end{matrix}</math></center> | \end{matrix}</math></center> | ||

− | where <math>D</math> is the data dimension, <math></math> and <math></math> are the total occupancy and the covariance matrix of the pooled state respectively: | + | where <math>D</math> is the data dimension, <math>\gamma(\Theta)</math> and <math>\sum(\Theta)</math> are the total occupancy and the covariance matrix of the pooled state respectively: |

<center><math> \begin{matrix} | <center><math> \begin{matrix} |

## Revision as of 12:52, 7 November 2011

## Speech synthesis vs. speech recognition

As mentioned in the original paper, speech synthesis requires a much larger and more complex set of contexts in order to achieve high quality synthesised speech. Examples of such contexts are the following:

- Identity of neighbouring phones to the central phone. Two phones to the left and the right of the centre phone are usually considered as phonetic neighbouring contexts
- Position of phones, syllables, words and phrases w.r.t. higher level units
- Number of phones, syllables, words and phrases w.r.t. higher level units
- Syllable stress and accent status
- Linguistic role, e.g. part-of-speech tag
- Emotion and emphasis

## Notes

There are many factors that could affect the acoustic realisation of phones. The prior knowledge of such factors form the questions used in the decision tree based state clustering procedure. Some questions are highly correlated, e.g. the phonetic broad class questions and the syllable questions. Some others are not, like the example mentioned in the paper (phonetic broad class questions and emphasis questions).

## MLLR based approach

let's rewrite the first equation in (4) of the original paper as:

let m be used instead of [math]r_c[/math] to denote the index of the atomic state cluster, while [math]W_{r_{e}} = [A_{r_{e}} b_{r_{e}}][/math] is the extended transform associated with leaf node [math]r_e[/math], and all other parameters are as previously defined. From the above equation, the parameters of the combined leaf node can not be directly estimated. Instead, they are constructed using two sets of parameters with different state clustering structures. The detailed procedure is as follows:

1. Construct factorized decision trees for normal contexts [math](r_p)[/math] and emphasis contexts [math](r_e)[/math]. Let [math] m = r_e(m) \cap r_p(m)[/math] be the atomic state cluster (atomic Gaussian in the single Gaussian case)

2. Get initial parameters of the atomic Gaussians from state clustering using normal decision tree and let [math]\hat \mu_m = \mu_{r_{p}(m)} [/math]

3. Estimate [math]W_{r_{e}}[/math] given the current model parameters [math]\mu_{r_{p}(m)}[/math] and [math]\sum_{r_{p}(m)}[/math] The [math]d^{th}[/math] row of [math]W_{r_{e}}, w_{r_{e},d}^T[/math] is estimated as

where the sufficient statistics for the [math]d^{th}[/math] row are given by

where [math]o_{t,d}[/math] is the [math]d^{th}[/math] element of observation vector [math]o_t[/math], and [math]\sigma_{dd}^{r_{p}(m)}[/math] is the [math]d^{th}[/math] diagonal element of [math]\sum_{r_p(m)}[/math]. r_{p}(m) is the leaf node of the normal decision tree to which Gaussian component m belongs. [math]\gamma_m(t)[/math] is the posterior for Gaussian component m at time t which is calculated using the forward-backward algorithm with the parameters obtained from the first equation above.

4. Estimate [math]\mu_{r_c}[/math] given the emphasis transform parameters [math]W_{r_e}[/math]. Given sufficient statistics:

and the new mean is then estimated by

5. Given the updated mean [math]\mu_{r_p}[/math] and transform[math]W_{r_e}[/math], perform context adaptation to get [math]\hat \mu_m[/math]using the first equation above

6. The re-estimation of [math]\sum_{r_p}[/math] is then performed using the standard covariance update formula with the adapted [math]\hat \mu_m[/math]. Here, the statistics are accumulated for each leaf node [math]r_p[/math] rather than each individual component [math]m[/math]

where [math]\gamma_m(t)[/math] is calculated using [math]\hat \mu_m[/math] constructed from the new estimate of [math]\mu_{r_p}[/math] and [math]W_{r_e}[/math]

7. Go to step (3) until convergence

## State clustering

The idea of decision tree based state clustering is to use a binary decision tree in which a question is attached to each non-leaf node, to assign the state distribution of every possible full context HMM model to a state cluster. When using a single Gaussian as the state output distribution, and considering that the Gaussian parameters [math]\mu(\Theta)[/math] and [math]\sum(\Theta)[/math] are ML estimates, the log likelihood of a set of states [math]\Theta[/math] can be represented as

where [math]D[/math] is the data dimension, [math]\gamma(\Theta)[/math] and [math]\sum(\Theta)[/math] are the total occupancy and the covariance matrix of the pooled state respectively:

[math][/math]