Automatic Speech Recognition
Jurafsky & Martin, Speech and Language Processing, 3rd ed. draft, ch. 16
16 cards in “16.6 Word error rate” · whole deck
16.6 Word error rate
- What is the word error rate (WER) based on?How much the recognizer's hypothesized word string differs from a reference transcription, via the minimum edit distance in words (substitutions, insertions, deletions).
- Jurafsky & Martin, Speech and Language Processing, 3rd ed. draft, ch. 16, §16.6
- WER formula?\(\mathrm{WER} = 100 \times \frac{\text{Insertions} + \text{Substitutions} + \text{Deletions}}{\text{Total words in correct transcript}}\)
- Jurafsky & Martin, Speech and Language Processing, 3rd ed. draft, ch. 16, §16.6
- Can WER exceed 100%? Why?Yes, because insertions are counted: the hypothesis can contain more errors than there are reference words.
- Jurafsky & Martin, Speech and Language Processing, 3rd ed. draft, ch. 16, §16.6
- Compute WER: 6 substitutions, 3 insertions, 1 deletion, 13 reference words.100 × (6 + 3 + 1)/13 = 76.9%.
- Jurafsky & Martin, Speech and Language Processing, 3rd ed. draft, ch. 16, §16.6
- What is sclite?The standard free NIST script for computing WER: aligns reference and hypothesis sentences, computes WER, and supports error analysis.
- Jurafsky & Martin, Speech and Language Processing, 3rd ed. draft, ch. 16, §16.6
- What extra analyses does sclite provide?Confusion matrices of commonly misrecognized words, statistics on frequently inserted/deleted words, error rates by speaker, and sentence error rate.
- Jurafsky & Martin, Speech and Language Processing, 3rd ed. draft, ch. 16, §16.6
- What is sentence error rate?The percentage of sentences with at least one word error.
- Jurafsky & Martin, Speech and Language Processing, 3rd ed. draft, ch. 16, §16.6
- List standard English text normalization rules before computing WER.(1) Remove metalanguage in brackets. (2) Remove or standardize filled pauses (uh, um, err). (3) Standardize contractions (I'm / I am). (4) Normalize non-standard words ($100 → one hundred dollars). (5) Unify US and UK spellings.
- Jurafsky & Martin, Speech and Language Processing, 3rd ed. draft, ch. 16, §16.6
- What is the standard significance test for comparing WERs?The Matched-Pair Sentence Segment Word Error (MAPSSWE) test (Gillick & Cox, 1989).
- Jurafsky & Martin, Speech and Language Processing, 3rd ed. draft, ch. 16, §16.6
- How does MAPSSWE work?A parametric test on the difference in word error counts between two systems, per segment, averaged across many segments.
- Jurafsky & Martin, Speech and Language Processing, 3rd ed. draft, ch. 16, §16.6
- How are segments defined in MAPSSWE, and why?As regions bounded on both sides by words both recognizers got correct (or turn/utterance boundaries), so errors in different segments are roughly independent (ASR uses trigram-like LMs). Many short segments help justify normality and maximize power.
- Jurafsky & Martin, Speech and Language Processing, 3rd ed. draft, ch. 16, §16.6
- MAPSSWE: what is Zᵢ?\(Z_i = N_A^i - N_B^i\): the difference in the number of errors systems A and B make on segment i.
- Jurafsky & Martin, Speech and Language Processing, 3rd ed. draft, ch. 16, §16.6
- MAPSSWE mean and variance estimates?\(\hat\mu_z = \sum_i Z_i / n\); \(\sigma_z^2 = \frac{1}{n-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}(Z_i-\mu_z)^2\)
- Jurafsky & Martin, Speech and Language Processing, 3rd ed. draft, ch. 16, §16.6
- MAPSSWE test statistic W and decision rule?\(W = \frac{\hat\mu_z}{\sigma_z/\sqrt{n}}\). For n > 50, W is approximately standard normal. Reject H₀: μ_z = 0 if 2·P(Z ≥ |w|) ≤ 0.05 (two-tailed) or P(Z ≥ |w|) ≤ 0.05 (one-tailed).
- Jurafsky & Martin, Speech and Language Processing, 3rd ed. draft, ch. 16, §16.6
- Why is McNemar's test unsuitable for continuous ASR?It requires independent errors, but in continuous speech errors on a word strongly depend on errors on neighboring words.
- Jurafsky & Martin, Speech and Language Processing, 3rd ed. draft, ch. 16, §16.6
- What's a known weakness of WER as a metric?It weights every word equally; content words like “Tuesday” arguably matter more than function words like “a” or “of”, but no agreed alternative works across all applications.
- Jurafsky & Martin, Speech and Language Processing, 3rd ed. draft, ch. 16, §16.6
Source
- Daniel Jurafsky and James H. Martin. Speech and Language Processing. 3rd edition (draft). https://web.stanford.edu/~jurafsky/slp3/