. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Sep 1.

Published in final edited form as: Comput Speech Lang. 2022 Mar 28;75:101380. doi: 10.1016/j.csl.2022.101380

Table 4:

Comparison of different segment quality estimator modes (for M = 40), update the segment quality scores for k = 1 time. None: without using a segment quality estimator

CTRS code	MAE/RMSE			F1 scores (%)
CTRS code	None	Even	Uneven	None	Even	Uneven
ag	0.86/1.10	0.85/1.10	0.81/1.05	74.6 ⁺	74.6	76.6 ^*
at	0.95/1.20	0.90/1.16	0.93/1.18	64.5 ⁺	66.3 ^*	65.6
co	0.74/0.97	0.73/0.96	0.75/0.98	69.6	70.5	68.9
fb	0.97/1.20	0.89/1.13	0.93/1.15	66.5 ⁺	69.5 ^*	68.0
gd	0.74/0.98	0.71/0.95	0.73/0.98	63.2 ⁺	66.6 ^*	64.4
hw	1.00/1.24	0.97/1.21	0.96/1.20	67.0	68.2	68.7
ip	0.69/0.90	0.67/0.89	0.69/0.90	60.5	61.5	60.3
cb	0.89/1.10	0.91/1.12	0.91/1.13	69.8	69.3	69.3
pt	0.84/1.16	0.82/1.13	0.84/1.16	64.0	65.5	64.4
sc	1.00/1.25	0.96/1.19	0.98/1.20	66.9 ⁺	69.4 ^*	68.6
un	0.66/0.87	0.62/0.83	0.64/0.85	60.2	62.4	61.5

is significantly higher than

⁺

at p < 0.05 based on Student’s t-test.