An efficient beam pruning with a reward considering the potential to reach various words on a lexical tree
ABSTRACT This paper presents an efficient frame-synchronous beam pruning for automatic speech recognition. With conventional beam pruning, hypotheses that have a greater potential to reach various words on a lexical tree are likely to be pruned out, since this potential is not taken into account. To make the beam pruning less restrictive for hypotheses with a greater potential and vice versa, the proposed method adds a reward as a monotonically increasing function of the number of reachable words from the node where a hypothesis stays on a lexical tree, to the likelihood of the hypothesis. The reward is designed not to collapse the ASR probabilistic framework. The proposed method reduces the processing time from 30% to 70% for grammar-based tasks. For a language-model-based dictation task, it also causes an additional reduction from the processing time of the beam pruning with the language model look-ahead technique.
- SourceAvailable from: Tibor Fabian[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Abstract Improved efficiency of pruning accelerates the search process and leads to a more time efficient speech recognition system. The goal of this work,was,to develop a new,pruning tech- nique which optimizes the well known,probability-based prun- ing (beam width) by utilization of confidence measurement. We use normalized hypotheses scores to guide the beam,width of the pruning process dynamically,frame per frame during the whole,utterance. Compared,with classical pruning tech- niques like fixed beam,pruning and histogram,rank pruning we,achieved significantly better results concerning,the time consumption,of the recognizer. The speed of the recognition process could be accelerated up to 14 times with a slight degra- dation in recognition accuracy.INTERSPEECH 2005 - Eurospeech, 9th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, Lisbon, Portugal, September 4-8, 2005; 01/2005
Conference Paper: Improvements in beam search.The 3rd International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, ICSLP 1994, Yokohama, Japan, September 18-22, 1994; 01/1994
Conference Paper: An adaptive-beam pruning technique for continuous speech recognition[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Pruning is an essential paradigm to build HMM based large vocabulary speech recognisers that use reasonable computing resources. Unlikely sentence, word or subword hypotheses are removed from the search space when their likelihood falls outside a beam relative to the best scoring hypothesis. A method for automatically steering this beam such that the search space attains a predefined size is presentedSpoken Language, 1996. ICSLP 96. Proceedings., Fourth International Conference on; 11/1996
AN EFFICIENT BEAM PRUNING WITH A REWARD CONSIDERING
THE POTENTIAL TO REACH VARIOUS WORDS ON A LEXICAL TREE
Tsuneo Kato, Kengo Fujita, Nobuyuki Nishizawa
KDDI R& D Laboratories Inc.
User Interface Laboratory
2-1-15 Ohara, Fujimino-shi, Saitama 356-8502, Japan
This paper presents an efficient frame-synchronous beam pruning
for automatic speech recognition. With conventional beam pruning,
hypotheses that have a greater potential to reach various words on
a lexical tree are likely to be pruned out, since this potential is not
taken into account. To make the beam pruning less restrictive for
hypotheses with a greater potential and vice versa, the proposed
method adds a reward as a monotonically increasing function of
the number of reachable words from the node where a hypothesis
stays on a lexical tree, to the likelihood of the hypothesis. The
reward is designed not to collapse the ASR probabilistic
framework. The proposed method reduces the processing time
from 30% to 70% for grammar-based tasks. For a language-model-
based dictation task, it also causes an additional reduction from the
processing time of the beam pruning with the language model
Index Terms— pruning, frame synchronous beam search, lexical
Automatic speech recognition (ASR) engines always demand fast
search algorithms to use larger language models and more accurate
acoustic models for expansion of their domains and coverage. Fast
search algorithms are also needed for the engines to be embedded
in mobile devices. In standard HMM-based ASR engines, search
efficiency is enhanced in two ways. Firstly, the search space is
hierarchically structured in a word level network and an HMM-
state-level network which represents the words, and the HMM-
state-level network is organized as a lexical tree . Secondly, the
hypotheses used to search for the best path on the lexical tree are
effectively reduced by frame-by-frame pruning without word
accuracy deterioration. The idea of basic beam and histogram
pruning  is to retain the most promising hypotheses for further
searches and exclude the rest with reference to their likelihoods.
These methods basically function well by setting proper thresholds.
However, the required number of hypotheses to bring out the best
word accuracy is still excessive as the vocabulary size increases.
Various methods have thus been proposed to shorten the
processing time [1-8]. Two-pass search algorithms are effective
ways to introduce a detailed N-gram language model or a detailed
acoustic model in a short processing time [3,4]. The language
model look-ahead technique [1,5] significantly reduces the
required number of hypotheses by incorporating a language model
as early as possible into the search on the lexical tree. However,
this powerful technique is not available in grammar-based tasks
which do not use linguistic probabilities. Improvements of the
beam search are mainly concerning adaptive controls of a dynamic
beam width [6,7]. As an improvement focusing on properties of the
lexical tree, equal-depth pruning with an optimization technique
has been proposed in . However, the performance is supposed to
be unstable when the number of hypotheses is severely reduced,
because the basis, i.e. the top of the likelihood in each depth is
chosen from a limited number of hypotheses of a certain depth.
We propose an improved beam pruning which takes the
property of the lexical tree into consideration. The property is that
a hypothesis staying at a state close to the root of a lexical tree has
a greater potential to produce various word hypotheses than one
close to a leaf, and that pruning of a hypothesis close to the root
generally has a more adverse impact on the accuracy of the
resultant recognized word sequence than that of a hypothesis close
to a leaf. Therefore, the proposed method eases the pruning
condition for the hypotheses close to the root. Unlike the language
model look-ahead, the proposed method is applicable to the
grammar-based tasks. The proposed method is also applicable in
combination with the language model look-ahead and/or the two-
pass search algorithms.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. An
analysis of the distribution of reachable words on a lexical tree,
and the proposed method are described in Section 2. Experiments
on the processing time (real time factor: RTF) and accuracy (word
error rate: WER) in three recognition tasks are reported in Section
3, while the proposed method is concluded in Section 4.
2. BEAM PRUNING WITH A REWARD CONSIDERING
THE POTENTIAL TO REACH VARIOUS WORDS ON A
2.1. Distribution of HMM states in terms of the number of
reachable words on a lexical tree
The lexical tree is formed by merging the common partial HMM
state sequences from the beginning between words. A sample of
the lexical tree is shown in Fig. 1. The potential to reach various
words from a state in the lexical tree is quantifiable by the number
of reachable words. As easily seen from Fig.1, a lexical tree
comprises a small number of states with a great potential, and a
vast number of those with a limited potential. We first investigated
the distribution of HMM states in terms of the number of reachable
words for the lexical tree of the 10k-word railway station name
4930978-1-4244-4296-6/10/$25.00 ©2010 IEEE ICASSP 2010
Fig.1 A sample of a lexical tree.
The numbers represent #reachable words from the HMM states.
Fig.2 Histogram of the HMM states in terms of the number of
reachable words in the lexical tree of the railway station task.
task which we use in Section 3. Fig. 2 shows the histogram. The
vertical axis is on a logarithmic scale. The HMM states reaching a
single word, those reaching two words, those reaching three and
those reaching four occupy 71%, 19%, 3.2% and 1.8%,
respectively. The number of HMM states decreases rapidly from
those of a single reachable word to more. On the other hand, a few
HMM states close to the root have hundreds or thousands
reachable words. An HMM state next to the root has the maximal
number of 1,738 reachable words. Naturally, the hypotheses on the
lexical tree comprise a small number of those with a great number
of reachable words, and a vast number of those with few reachable
words. As mentioned above, a pruned hypothesis with more
reachable words impinges more than a pruned one with fewer
reachable words on the word accuracy of the resultant word
sequence. Therefore, we ease the pruning condition in relative
terms for the few hypotheses with a great number of reachable
words, and tighten it for the vast hypotheses with few reachable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
A) Reward by log. func. w a=0.90 (isolated word)
B) Reward by exp. func. w a=30, b=11 (isolated word)
Fig.3 Two monotonically increasing functions for the reward:
a logarithmic function and an asymptotic exponential function.
The coefficients are set as follows: alog=0.90, aexp=30 and bexp=11,
which are optimized values in the isolated word recognition task.
2.2. Beam pruning with a reward as a function of the number
of reachable words on a lexical tree
As a hypothesis advances on a path from root to leaf, the number
of reachable words decreases monotonically, and is narrowed
down to one after the hypothesis passes the last branching state in
the lexical tree. Leveraging this property, a reward as a
monotonically increasing function of the number of reachable
words is tentatively added to the likelihood of the hypothesis for
pruning. In addition, the monotonically increasing function is set
to be zero when the number of the reachable words is one. The
reward eases the pruning for the hypotheses closer to the root,
while tightening it for the hypotheses closer to the leaves.
Furthermore, this does not collapse the ASR probabilistic
framework because the reward is always zero at the leaf HMM
states unless homonyms or other words with that word as their
prefix exist in the lexicon. (Note that the probabilistic framework
is preserved by not adding the reward to the likelihood of a word
hypothesis even when homonyms or other words with that word as
their prefix exist.)
In a case of grammar-based recognition without linguistic
probabilities, the score S(h) for pruning of a hypothesis h is given
where La(h), W(h) and R(W) denote the accumulated acoustic
likelihood, the number of reachable words of the hypothesis h in
the lexical tree and the reward as a function of the number of
reachable words, respectively. Strictly speaking, the reachable
words depend on the grammatical context. However, W(h) was
pre-computed approximately as the number of reachable words
from a state in the lexical tree without considering the grammatical
context here for simplification.
In a case of recognition based on a probabilistic language
model, the score S(h) is given by
where Ll, Lla(h) and wlm denote the accumulated linguistic
likelihood from the word at the beginning to the previous word, the
word 1word 1
word 2word 2
word 3 word 3
word Nword N
likelihood of language model look-ahead for the hypothesis h and
the language model weight, respectively.
Considering the “long-tail” distribution of the HMM states
shown in Fig. 2, we presume two types of monotonically
increasing functions which fulfill R(1) = 0, here. One is A) a
logarithmic function as:
The other is B) an asymptotic exponential function converging on
a value aexp as:
The alog, aexp and bexp in the equations are constant values. The
functions are shown in Fig. 3.
The pruning employed in this paper is a standard beam and
histogram pruning proposed in . For the beam pruning, the
maximum of S(h) among all hypotheses is selected as the basis
Smax every frame. Then, all the hypotheses are determined retained
or pruned out according to whether the score S(h) falls within a
predefined threshold fB from the basis Smax or not. Hypotheses
which fulfill the following equation are retained.
The histogram pruning is to limit the number of retained
hypotheses under a predefined number Nmax. To dispense with
computationally expensive sorting of hypotheses likelihoods, all
the hypotheses are classified into ranges of a histogram once, and
the hypotheses from the upper ranges are retained until the total
number of retained hypotheses exceeds Nmax. The beam pruning
and histogram pruning are used in combination.
3.1. Evaluation tasks, test sets and experimental setup
The proposed method was evaluated by three recognition tasks: an
isolated word recognition task, a grammar-based short sentence
task without linguistic probabilities, and a dictation task based on a
probabilistic language model. The isolated word recognition task is
of 10k-word railway station names in Japanese. The short sentence
task is of a formulaic train connection inquiry. The grammar
accepts the pattern, “From <a departure station> to <an arrival
station>” in Japanese. The dictation task is a general mail dictation
based on a 30k-word trigram language model.
Test sets of the tasks were collected using a recorder on
cellphones in various noise environments. The noise environments
were 30 places where people often use cellphones, including
railway terminal stations, suburban railway stations, station
squares, offices, roadsides and shopping malls. The test set of the
isolated word recognition task was 957 utterances made by 50
male and female speakers, respectively. The test set of the train
connection task was 500 utterances of the same speakers. The test
set of the mail dictation task was 389 utterances of typical
sentences from business mails. This test set was collected in a
The experimental conditions were as follows. A total of 38
dimensional acoustic features composed of the standard acoustic
features of ETSI ES201108 with CMS and their first and second
Real Time Factor
A) Reward by log. func.
B) Reward by exp. func.
Fig.4 RTF and WER for the isolated word recognition task.
Real Time Factor
A) Reward by log. func.
B) Reward by exp. func.
Fig.5 RTF and WER for the grammar-based recognition task.
derivatives excluding power were extracted from speech sampled
at 8.0 kHz. The decoder used speaker-independent tied-state
triphone models. In the isolated word recognition and the short
sentence tasks, context-free grammars (CFGs) without linguistic
probabilities on word entries were used with a one-pass frame-
synchronous beam search. In the mail dictation task, a trigram
language model was used with a one-pass frame-synchronous
The coefficients alog, aexp and bexp of the proposed functions
were optimized to minimize WER by experimenting with a
development set of the size equivalent to that of the test set under a
tight pruning condition. The tight pruning condition set the beam
width fB at 140, and the maximum number of retained hypotheses
Nmax at 500. The processing time was measured on a PC with Intel
Pentium 4 3.0 GHz.
3.2. Results of an isolated word recognition task
Fig. 4 shows the averaged real time factor (RTF) and word error
rates (WER) for the isolated word recognition task of 10k-word
railway station names. Four lines represent the basic pruning that
is the beam and histogram pruning described in Section 2.2 applied
to the likelihood without adding a reward, A) the beam and
histogram pruning with the reward given by a logarithmic function,
B) the beam and histogram pruning with the reward given by an
asymptotic exponential function, and the equal-depth pruning .
The parameter of each line is the strength of the pruning. Actually,
the maximal number of retained hypotheses Nmax was shifted with
the beam width fB fixed at 140. The looser the pruning, the lower
the WER value, but the longer the RTF.
The proposed method B) reached WER of 17.2% at RTF 0.180,
while the basic pruning reached the same WER at RTF 0.255,
which was a 30% reduction. In contrast, the proposed method A)
made no improvement. The optimized coefficients were alog = 0.90
for the method A), aexp = 30.0 and bexp = 11.0 for the method B).
Two functions with the optimized coefficients are shown in
Fig. 3. The ineffectiveness of the logarithmic function is due to the
small change of the reward in the region of the small number of
The equal-depth pruning in a simple implementation was
worse than the others. It might be improved if the depth levels are
3.3. Results of a grammar-based short sentence task
Fig. 5 shows the RTF and WER for the grammar-based task of the
formulaic train connection inquiry. The WER was calculated based
on the 1,000 departure and arrival station names in the 500
utterances. Four lines represent the same as shown in Fig. 4. While
the WER of the basic pruning gradually approached the minimal
value, that of B) reached the minimal value of the basic pruning
21.3% at RTF 0.25, which meant an approximately 70% reduction.
The proposed method B) achieved a 1% lower WER than the basic
pruning for the minimal value. The optimized coefficients were
aexp = 20.0 and bexp = 4.0 for the proposed method B). The
proposed method A) and the equal-depth pruning did not show
improvements for the task either.
3.4. Results of a language-model-based dictation task
Fig. 6 shows RTF and WER for the 30k-word mail dictation task.
In this dictation task, the basic pruning includes the language
model look-ahead technique . This technique actually reduces
the processing time to less than 1/10 from that without the look-
ahead technique. The other lines also include the look-ahead
technique as their baseline.
While the basic pruning reached a WER of 20.0% with RTF
0.60, the proposed method B) reached the WER value with RTF
0.46, which was a 23% reduction. The optimized coefficients were
aexp= 46.0 and bexp = 0.4 for B). The proposed method A) and the
equal-depth pruning made no improvement.
Though the reward given by the asymptotic exponential function
with the language model look-ahead technique improved the
efficiency from the basic pruning with the language model look-
ahead, the effect was weaker than that of the grammar-based
recognition tasks. We consider this to be due to the similarity of
the effects achieved by the language model look-ahead technique
and the proposed reward given on the likelihood of hypotheses.
The look-ahead value also decreases monotonically as a hypothesis
advances on a path from the root in the lexical tree because the
look-ahead value uses the maximum value of the linguistic
likelihood among the reachable words.
Viewed from another perspective, the monotonically decreasing
reward along with a path on a lexical tree can be interpreted as a
Real Time Factor
Basic pruning w language model look-ahead
A) Reward by log. func.
B) Reward by exp. func.
Fig.6 RTF and WER for the language-model-based dictation task.
heuristic expected gain of the likelihood on the path from the
current HMM state to a leaf state in the lexical tree.
To make the frame-synchronous beam search more efficient and
reduce the processing time, we propose the introduction of a
tentative reward considering the potential to reach various words
from the HMM state of a hypothesis into pruning. The reward
given by an asymptotic exponential function greatly reduced the
number of hypotheses required to retain the maximal word
accuracy in grammar-based tasks. The reward revealed 30-70%
reduction in processing time for the grammar-based tasks without
losing accuracy. In the language-model-based dictation task, it
revealed an additional 23% reduction in processing time from the
pruning with the language model look-ahead technique.
 R. Haeb-Umbach and H. Ney, “Improvements in beam search
for 10,000-word continuous speech recognition,” IEEE Trans.
Speech and Audio Processing, Vol.2, No.2, pp. 353-356, 1994.
 V. Steinbiss, B.-H. Tran and H. Ney, “Improvements in beam
search,” Proc. of ICSLP 94, pp. 2143-2146, 1994.
 M. Novak et al., “Two-pass search strategy for large list
recognition on embedded speech recognition platforms,” Proc. of
ICASSP 2003, Vol.1, pp.200-203, 2003.
 X. Zhu and Y.Chen, “A novel efficient decoding algorithm for
CDHMM-based speech recognition on chip,” Proc. of ICASSP
2003, Vol.1, pp.293-296, 2003.
 S. Ortmanns, A. Eiden and H. Ney, “Look-ahead techniques for
fast beam search,” Proc. of ICASSP 97, pp.1783-1786, 1997.
 H. V. Hamme and F. V. Aelten, “An adaptive-beam pruning
technique for continuous speech recognition,” Proc. of ICSLP 96,
pp. 2083-2086, 1996.
 T. Fabian, et al., “A confidence-guided dynamic pruning
approach -Utilization of confidence measurement in speech
recognition-,” Proc. of Interspeech 2005, pp. 585-588.
 J. Pylkkonen, “New pruning criteria for efficient decoding,”
Proc. of Interspeech 2005, pp.581-584, 2005.