Connectionist Temporal Classification: Labelling Unsegmented Sequence Data with Recurrent Neural Networks

Graves et al., 2006, Connectionist Temporal Classification (Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2006))

Subscriber deck — free during early access

4 cards in “3.1 From Network Outputs to Labellings” · whole deck

3.1 From Network Outputs to Labellings

  1. What does a CTC network’s output layer look like?
    A softmax with one more unit than there are labels: \(y_k^t\) is the probability of label \(k\) at time \(t\), and the extra unit is the probability of a blank (no label). The probability of a path \(\pi\) of length \(T\) over labels plus blank is \(p(\pi \mid \mathbf{x}) = \prod_{t=1}^{T} y_{\pi_t}^t\), assuming outputs are conditionally independent given the network’s internal state.
  2. What is the CTC collapsing map \(\mathcal{B}\)? Give an example.
    It maps a path to a labelling by first merging repeated labels and then removing blanks: \(\mathcal{B}(a{-}ab{-}) = \mathcal{B}({-}aa{-}{-}abb) = aab\). A new label is emitted whenever the network switches from blank to a label or between different labels; a blank between two equal labels keeps them separate.
  3. How does CTC define the probability of a labelling?
    As the sum over all paths that collapse to it: \(p(\mathbf{l} \mid \mathbf{x}) = \sum_{\pi \in \mathcal{B}^{-1}(\mathbf{l})} p(\pi \mid \mathbf{x})\). Summing over alignments means no segmentation is needed.
  4. Why do CTC networks’ outputs look like spikes?
    A trained CTC network typically predicts each label as a short spike, separated by strongly predicted blanks, instead of aligning labels with manual segment boundaries as a framewise network must. Labels that always occur together (e.g. the closure dcl and the stop d) may appear as a double spike.

Source

  • Alex Graves, Santiago Fernández, Faustino Gomez and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2006. Connectionist Temporal Classification: Labelling Unsegmented Sequence Data with Recurrent Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2006), pp. 369–376. doi:10.1145/1143844.1143891