Literary and Colloquial Tamil Dialect Identification

August 25, 2024 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› Circuits, systems, and signal processing

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors M. Nanmalar, P. Vijayalakshmi, T. Nagarajan arXiv ID 2408.13739 Category eess.AS: Audio & Speech Cross-listed cs.CL, cs.HC, cs.LG, cs.SD Citations 5 Venue Circuits, systems, and signal processing Last Checked 3 months ago
Abstract
Culture and language evolve together. The old literary form of Tamil is used commonly for writing and the contemporary colloquial Tamil is used for speaking. Human-computer interaction applications require Colloquial Tamil (CT) to make it more accessible and easy for the everyday user and, it requires Literary Tamil (LT) when information is needed in a formal written format. Continuing the use of LT alongside CT in computer aided language learning applications will both preserve LT, and provide ease of use via CT, at the same time. Hence there is a need for the conversion between LT and CT dialects, which demands as a first step, dialect identification. Dialect Identification (DID) of LT and CT is an unexplored area of research. In the current work, keeping the nuances of both these dialects in mind, five methods are explored which include two implicit methods - Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM) and Convolutional Neural Network (CNN); two explicit methods - Parallel Phone Recognition (PPR) and Parallel Large Vocabulary Continuous Speech Recognition (P-LVCSR); two versions of the proposed explicit Unified Phone Recognition method (UPR-1 and UPR-2). These methods vary based on: the need for annotated data, the size of the unit, the way in which modelling is carried out, and the way in which the final decision is made. Even though the average duration of the test utterances is less - 4.9s for LT and 2.5s for CT - the systems performed well, offering the following identification accuracies: 87.72% (GMM), 93.97% (CNN), 89.24% (PPR), 94.21% (P-LVCSR), 88.57% (UPR-1), 93.53% (UPR-1 with P-LVCSR), 94.55% (UPR-2), and 95.61% (UPR-2 with P-LVCSR).
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Audio & Speech

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted