In this task, you are given a part of an article. Your task is to generate headline (title) for this text. Preferred headlines are under fifteen words.

[Q]: The field of speech recognition is in the midst of a paradigm shift: end-to-end neural networks are challenging the dominance of hidden Markov models as a core technology. Using an attention mechanism in a recurrent encoder-decoder architecture solves the dynamic time alignment problem, allowing joint end-to-end training of the acoustic and language modeling components. In this paper we extend the end-to-end framework to encompass microphone array signal processing for noise suppression and speech enhancement within the acoustic encoding network. This allows the beamforming components to be optimized jointly within the recognition architecture to improve the end-to-end speech recognition objective. Experiments on the noisy speech benchmarks (CHiME-4 and AMI) show that our multichannel end-to-end system outperformed the attention-based baseline with input from a conventional adaptive beamformer.
[A]: Multichannel End-to-end Speech Recognition

[Q]: Quantifying the degree of spatial dependence for linguistic variables is a key task for analyzing dialectal variation. However, existing approaches have important drawbacks. First, they make unjustified assumptions about the nature of spatial variation: some assume that the geographical distribution of linguistic variables is Gaussian, while others assume that linguistic variation is aligned to pre-defined geopolitical units such as states or counties. Second, they are not applicable to all types of linguistic data: some approaches apply only to frequencies, others to boolean indicators of whether a linguistic variable is present. We present a new method for measuring geographical language variation, which solves both of these problems. Our approach builds on reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS) representations for nonparametric statistics, and takes the form of a test statistic that is computed from pairs of individual geotagged observations without aggregation into predefined geographical bins. We compare this test with prior work using synthetic data as well as a diverse set of real datasets: a corpus of Dutch tweets, a Dutch syntactic atlas, and a dataset of letters to the editor in North American newspapers. Our proposed test is shown to support robust inferences across a broad range of scenarios and types of data.
[A]: A Kernel Independence Test for Geographical Language Variation

[Q]: This paper studies a new and more general axiomatization than one presented in [6] for preference on likelihood gambles. Likelihood gambles describe actions in a situation where a decision maker knows multiple probabilistic models and a random sample generated from one of those models but does not know prior probability of models. This new axiom system is inspired by Jensen's axiomatization of probabilistic gambles. Our approach provides a new perspective to the role of data in decision making under ambiguity. 1 Likelihood gambles Likelihood gambles introduced in [5, 6] describe actions in situation of model ambiguity characterized by (1) there are multiple probabilistic models; (2) there is data providing likelihoods for the models and (3) there is no prior probability about the models. Formally, we consider a general problem described by a tuple (X,Y,,A,x). X,Y are variables describing a phenomenon of interest. X is experiment variable whose values can be observed through experiments or data gathering (e.g. lab test results, clinical observations). Y is utility variable whose values determine the utility of actions (e.g. stages of disease, relative size of the tumor). is the set of models that encode the knowledge about the phenomenon. To be precise, is a set of indices and knowledge is encoded in probability functions Pr(X,Y ) for . A is the set of alternative actions (e.g. surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy) that are functions from utility variable Y to the unit interval [0, 1] representing utility. FiI thank Bharat Rao for encouragement and support and UAI-2006 referees for their constructive comments. One should note that the use of utility rather than nally, evidence/data/observation gathered on experiment variable is X = x. A fundamental question to be answered is which among the alternative actions is the best choice given the information. We introduce the concept of likelihood gambles and derive a pricing formula that will allow their comparison. Note that given a model and observation x, distribution on utility variable Y is Pr(y|x). According to the classical Bayesian decision theory actions a A are values by their expected utility
[A]:
A new axiomatization for likelihood gambles