RETRACTED

This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [1]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process:

(1)Discrepancies in scope(2)Discrepancies in the description of the research reported(3)Discrepancies between the availability of data and the research described(4)Inappropriate citations(5)Incoherent, meaningless and/or irrelevant content included in the article(6)Peer-review manipulation

The presence of these indicators undermines our confidence in the integrity of the article’s content and we cannot, therefore, vouch for its reliability. Please note that this notice is intended solely to alert readers that the content of this article is unreliable. We have not investigated whether authors were aware of or involved in the systematic manipulation of the publication process.

Wiley and Hindawi regrets that the usual quality checks did not identify these issues before publication and have since put additional measures in place to safeguard research integrity.

We wish to credit our own Research Integrity and Research Publishing teams and anonymous and named external researchers and research integrity experts for contributing to this investigation.

The corresponding author, as the representative of all authors, has been given the opportunity to register their agreement or disagreement to this retraction. We have kept a record of any response received.

Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing
Volume 2022 (2022), Article ID 9666524, 8 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9666524

Research Article

Automatic Evaluation Method of Oral English Based on Multiplex Mode

Xueqian Chi

School of Foreign Languages, Hulunbuir University, Hulunbuir, 021008 Inner Mongolia, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Xueqian Chi; chixueqian@hlbec.edu.cn

Received 20 January 2022; Revised 28 February 2022; Accepted 9 March 2022; Published 30 March 2022

Academic Editor: Mohammad Farukh Hashmi

Copyright © 2022 Xueqian Chi. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

For the problem of the low accuracy of large-scale oral English, based on oral English from the perspective of difficulty of oral English text and phonology, a multimodal-based automatic oral English assessment method is proposed by using L2 regularized (multilayer perceptron, MLP) and 9 features affecting the automated assessment of oral English as model input. Simulation results show that the proposed method can well predictively assess oral English difficulty and performs well on RMSE and R2 metrics of 0.053 and 0.905, respectively, with certain advantages over conventional elastic network-based and random forest-based prediction models.

1. Foreword

As an international language, English is very important in its international status. Learning and mastering English has become a necessary skill for international communication. The cultivation of oral language ability is crucial in English learning. With the development and application of the Internet and intelligent technology, oral English learning methods are more flexible, and the learning cost is gradually reduced. At present, in the Internet oral English learning, the automatic evaluation of oral English is mainly realized through natural language processing, automatic speech recognition, and other methods. Softwares such as fluent in English speaking and IFlytek help learners to pronounce English by analyzing their imitation system and feedback words or phrases with wrong pronunciation, which help learners correct their mistakes and realize learners’ learning of oral English. However, it was found that the existing methods of automatic English evaluation have some limitations, mainly manifested in the model establishment of automatic evaluation of oral English. Based on fuzzy measurement and speech recognition technologies, Ling Zhao and Roberto Carlos Naranjo Cuerv and others optimize and update schemes for the integration of fuzzy measurement from the two aspects of algorithm process and evaluation model, establish the oral English reading evaluation model, and realize the evaluation of different spoken continuous states [1, 2]. Martijn Wieling and Tobias Cincarek et al. built an NDL-based automatic oral English evaluation model based on simple discriminative learning (NDL) oral English pronunciation distance [3, 4]. Wiehan Agenbag, Michal Krecichwost, and others proposed a method of unsupervised discovering subword units (SWU) and related pronunciation dictionaries for automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems, and realized automatic evaluation of spoken english by iterative reduction of pronunciation variation using Inter-word aggregation and model pruning [5, 6]. Savchenko and Daniel Felps et al., by examining the gain optimization of the spectral distortion measure between oral English learners and calculating the sound generated by learners, proposed to use the gradient descent optimization of gain difference optimization to adapt to the linear prediction coding coefficient of the reference sound, and realized the automatic evaluation of oral English and the training of oral English pronunciation [7, 8]. In the process of model construction, there are either some problems of unobjective model evaluation due to the less oral English-related characteristics selected, or the accuracy of model evaluation needs to be improved due to the many parameters of the model itself. Therefore, in order to solve the above problems, this paper proposes an improved MLP model based on the automatic evaluation of oral English from the perspective of oral English text difficulty and phonetics, by extracting and screening the automatic evaluation of oral English, and realizes the automatic evaluation of high accuracy of oral English.

2. Basic Approach

2.1. MLP Model Introduction

The MLP model is an artificial neural network formed by the development of the perception machine, because the model can set multiple neural layers, and each neural layer can set multiple nodes, also known as a deep neural network. The simplest MLP model consists of an input layer, a hidden layer, and an output layer, respectively, as shown in Figure 1 [9].

Figure 1: The benchmark MLP model structure.

The number of neurons in the benchmark MLP hidden layer is associated with the input layer output vector and the input feature dimension. Suppose the input layer output eigenvector as and by hidden layer as [10]

In it, is the weight, is the bias, and is usually a sigmoid or tanh function, and its expression is [11]

The output of the hidden layer is returned by softmax, which is the output layer output

In it, is a hidden layer output, expressed as:

Combined with the input layer, the hidden layer, and the output layer, the output of the MLP model can be expressed as

In formula, represents the softmax function as shown in [12]

The MLP model is characterized by simple method and fast training speed, but the generalization ability of the model needs to improve [13]. To improve the generalization ability of the MLP model, the model is modified by weight regularization.

2.2. MLP Model Refinement

Weight regularization is a way to modify the model weight coefficients to prevent the model from overfitting, including both L1 and L2. The L1 regularization is achieved by adding the L1 norm of the coefficient as a penalty term to the general linear regression loss function, and the essence is the Lasso regression, as seen in [14]

In the formula, can be calculated as

The L2 regularization is a ridge regression, and its arithmetic functions [15] are

In the formula, can be expressed as

The L2 regularization uses the quadratic side of the coefficient as the penalty term, and compared with the L1 regularization, the L2 regularization model does not produce large differences due to small data changes, with a more stable characteristic [16]. Therefore, the L2 regularized MLP model is chosen to prevent the model from overfitting and improve the generalization ability of the model.

3. Oral English Automatic Method Based on Improved MLP

3.1. Oral English Difficulty Model Construction Process

Based on the above analysis, the oral English difficulty model construction method is designed as shown in Figure 2 and mainly contains three modules: feature engineering, prediction model construction, and results and analysis. First, the factors affecting the difficulty of oral English were extracted, the extraction features were screened based on regularization, and then, the improved MLP prediction model was constructed and predicted. Finally, the difficulty of oral English was assessed based on the prediction results; that is, the automatic evaluation of oral English was realized.

Figure 2: Construction process of oral English text difficulty model.

3.2. Feature Engineering

3.2.1. Feature Extraction

Feature engineering is the basis of oral English difficulty model construction. Feature engineering includes two parts: feature extraction and feature screening. In this paper, from the perspective of oral English text difficulty and oral English phonology perspective, [17, 18], 17 indicators are summarize and extracted, as detailed in Table 1.

Table 1: Table of characteristic extraction factors.

Feature name

1
sum_nlet

2
mcannlet

3
ntenn

4
median brown Freq

5
mcdian_aecFrcq

6
TTR

7
mcanlfidf

8
mean idf

9
Colcman-Liau

10
FleschKincaidGradeLevel

11
FIcshRcadingEase

12
Gunning

13
LIX

14
nphone_sum

15
nsyl_sum

16
sircss_O

17
strcss_2

3.2.2. Feature Filtering

Among the above features, the information carried by different features has different effects on the model construction or prediction results. To reduce the training difficulty of the model and improve the prediction accuracy of the model, the features need to be screened. At present, there are many methods for feature screening, and the four common feature screening methods, as in Table 2, are selected to screen the above features [19–22].

Table 2: Feature filtering methods.

Abbreviation
Description
Parameters or methods

Linear regression
Parameter selection based on the linear regression
Based on sklearn calculation

SVR
Parameter selection based on support vector regression
Based on sklearn calculation, take the linear kernel as a function

Random forest
Parameter selection based on a random forest
Based on sklearn calculation

RFE_svr
Parameter selection based on recursive feature elimination
Based on sklearn calculation

As described above, the weights for each feature can be calculated. The results of the different feature weights show 9 features. Therefore, the 9 features in the feature importance ranking were finally selected as the final feature to construct an improved MLP model.

3.3. Improved MLP Prediction Model Construction

According to the above feature screening results, the input improved MLP model are features 9, so the input nodes of the model are 9, and 3 hidden layers and 1 output layer are used to construct the improved MLP network structure, and the relu function with simple calculation and good effect is selected as the activation function, whose mathematical description is seen as [23]

In the improved MLP model training, the error function is defined as the mean square error and RMSProp as the optimizer; the learning rate of the model is 0.0001. Finally, the improved MLP prediction model constructed in this paper is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Schematic structure of the MLP model.

4. Simulation Experiment

4.1. Experimental Environment Construction

This experiment was run on a 64-bit Windows7 system with a CPU of Intel (R) Core (TM) i7-7770HQ 2.8 GHz and 8 GB of memory using tensorflow and scikit-learn.

4.2. Data Source and Preprocessing

Data from this experiment are from K12 English learners’ log data from 1 August 2020 to 30 September 2020, collected by an English learning APP. Due to the large number of this dataset, to reduce the difficulty of model prediction, the experiments randomly selected some data from the daily data as the study subjects, and a total of 526,775 data were obtained. Considering the lack of data, we pre-processed and filtered and transformed the data before the experiment.

4.3. Evaluating Indicator

In this experiment, the model performance was tested using mean square error (MSE) and root mean square error (RMSE) as the evaluation index. The calculation method is seen in formulas (12) and (13) [24]; the linear regression determination coefficient () is used as the index of the fitting effect of the predicted value and the actual value and is calculated as [25]

4.4. Parameter Setting

According to the characteristic dimension, the input node of the proposed model is 15, the number of hidden layers is 3, the output node is 1, RMSProp is selected as the optimizer, relu is the activation function, the initial learning rate is 0.0001, and the L2 regularized regulation weight coefficient with a strength of 0.001. Since the number of hidden layer nodes is an important factor affecting the prediction effect of the model, the experiment to determine the best prediction model adopts the number of hidden layer nodes of the model.

The number of nodes is set in different hidden layers to construct different models for simulation, and the results are shown in Figure 4. In the figure, the number of nodes in the orange, blue, and green line hidden layers is 16168, 646448, and 1281288, respectively; solid and dashed lines represent model training and test error, respectively. According to the figure, the orange, blue, and green lines converge around 80, 40, and 20 Epoch, respectively, and the model error becomes smaller and smaller, which shows that the more the number of nodes in the hidden layer, the faster the convergence rate, the smaller the error. The green line corresponds to the small interval between the model solid line and the dashed line end, indicating that the larger network model test error is closer to the training error. In conclusion, this paper sets the number of hidden layer nodes for the improved MLP to 1281288.

Figure 4: Comparison of training process of different hidden layers.

Finally, in the experiment, the specific parameters of the proposed improved MLP model were set as follows: input node is 15, output node is 1, hidden layer quantity is 3, hidden layer node is1281288, learning rate is 0.0001, optimizer is RMSProp, activation function is relu function, and L2 regularization model was adopted.

4.5. Experimental Result

4.5.1. Modelling Verification

To ascertain whether L2 regularization is the best weight regularization to improve the MLP model, the experiment is regulated with L1 regularization and L2 regularization, respectively, based on the above parameter settings, yielding the results shown in Figure 5. In the figure, blue, orange, and green represent the model training process without adding weight regularization, L1 regularization with added intensity 0.001, and L2 regularization with added intensity 0.001, respectively. As can be seen from the graph, the interval between the model training and the test error with adding weight regularization is smaller than the unadded weight regularization interval, indicating that the introduction of weight regularization is conducive to improving the generalization ability of the model. The L2 regularization model and the L1 regularization model have a smaller training and test error interval, indicating that the L2 regularization model has better performance. Therefore, the proposed MLP is used by L2 regularization with strength 0 of 0.001.

Figure 5: Model training process in different regularization methods.

To further verify the effectiveness of the L2 regularization model, the generalization ability of the model is through adding discarded layers in the model. MLP with discard rates of 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4, respectively, and trained when the number of nodes in the hidden layer was 1281288 and other parameters were unchanged, yielded the results shown in Figure 6. In the figure, the blue lines represent the model training process without adding the discarded layers, and the orange, green, and red lines indicate the corresponding discard rates of 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4 model training, respectively. According to the figure, the model without adding the discarded layer has the least training times, the fastest convergence rate, and the MSE drops faster, indicating that the model performs better after not adding the discarded layer.

Figure 6: The model training procedure with different discarding rates.

In summary, the selected L2 regularization of the model improves the MLP model, which can better improve the generalization ability of the model compared with adding discarded layers. Therefore, this paper uses L2 regularization to improve the MLP model.

4.5.2. Model Contrast

To further verify the effectiveness and superiority of the proposed model, the experiment experimentally compares the proposed model with the traditional elastic network and random forest models.

(1) Prediction Results of Improved MLP Model. The improved MLP with the above parameter set is used to predict the reading items in the dataset, and the RMSE of the model is 0.053; that is, the gap between the predicted value and the real value of the model is 0.053, which is within the [0,1] interval of reading difficulty, and the error is low, indicating that the prediction value of the model is close to the actual value; the of the model was 0.905, close to 1, indicating that the model fits well. The predicted values and actual values of 271 data in the test set are shown in Figure 7. According to the figure, the prediction value and the actual value fit well, and the difference between the two is small, indicating that the proposed model has a good prediction effect.

Figure 7: Comparison of the predicted values versus the actual values.

(2) Predicted Results of the Elastic Network Model. Oral English prediction formula can be obtained by using the grid-based search method:

In the formula, indicates the difficulty of oral English text; is the number of word letters, is the total number of word phonemes, is the total number of word syllables, is the mean number of word syllables, and is the number of accent. The 10-fold crossover experiment on the experimental dataset was used, yielding the mean RMSE of 0.056 and of 0.873, indicating that the prediction value of the model is less different from the actual value and the prediction effect is good. However, compared with the proposed models, and , the prediction model based on the elastic network has some improvement space.

(3) Random Forest Prediction Results. The CART regression tree was used to build 30 decision trees, with a maximum tree depth of 6; the number of nodes was set as less than 50 and no longer split; and the model parameters were set by grid search method. The 10-fold cross experiment on the experimental dataset using the constructed random forest model, yielding the model RMSE mean, is about 0.055 and mean of 0.881, which is close to the prediction results based on elastic network and has a certain gap with the prediction effect of the proposed improved MLP model.

In conclusion, the improved MLP model is better than the random forest and elastic network prediction models and has certain effectiveness and advantages.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, the proposed multimodal-based automatic oral English automatic evaluation method selects 15 oral English features for improved MLP model from the perspective of oral English text difficulty and the MLP model and realizes the prediction of oral English text difficulty and oral English automation evaluation. Compared with the proposed model, the MLP model performs better when the RMSE and are 0.053 and 0.905, respectively. It has certain advantages and can be used for the automatic evaluation of practical spoken English. However, due to conditional limitations, there are still some deficiencies to be improved in feature extraction and selection. In terms of feature extraction, this paper mainly refers to the existing literature to extract statistical features such as word frequency, phoneme, and phonology, and the features affecting the automatic evaluation of oral English and grammatical structure and continuous reading.

Data Availability

The experimental data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declared that they have no conflicts of interest regarding this work.

References

L. Zhao, Y. Liu, L. Chen, J. Zhang, and J. G. Koomey, “English oral evaluation algorithm based on fuzzy measure and speech recognition.[J],” Journal of Intelligent Fuzzy Systems, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 241–248, 2019.

R. C. N. Cuervo and G. I. Á. Vargas, “A classifier model for detecting pronunciation errors regarding the Nasa Yuwe language’s 32 vowels,” Ingeniería e Investigación, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 74–78, 2012.

M. Wieling, J. Nerbonne, J. Bloem, C. Gooskens, W. Heeringa, and R. H. Baayen, “A cognitively grounded measure of pronunciation distance,” PLoS One, vol. 9, no. 1, article e75734, 2014.

T. Cincarek, R. Gruhn, C. Hacker, E. Nöth, and S. Nakamura, “Automatic pronunciation scoring of words and sentences independent from the non-native's first language,” Computer Speech & Language, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 65–88, 2009.

W. Agenbag and T. Niesler, “Automatic sub-word unit discovery and pronunciation lexicon induction for ASR with application to under-resourced languages [J],” Computer Speech & Language, vol. 57, pp. 20–40, 2019.

M. Krecichwost, Z. Miodonska, P. Badura, J. Trzaskalik, and N. Mocko, “Multi-channel acoustic analysis of phoneme/s/mispronunciation for lateral sigmatism detection [J],” Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 246–255, 2019.

A. V. Savchenko, V. V. Savchenko, and L. V. Savchenko, “Gain-optimized spectral distortions for pronunciation training,” Optimization Letters, pp. 1–19, 2021.

D. Felps, H. Bortfeld, and R. Gutierrez-Osuna, “Foreign accent conversion in computer assisted pronunciation training,” Speech Communication, vol. 51, no. 10, pp. 920–932, 2009.

S. Chebira, N. Bourmada, A. Boughaba, and M. Djebabra, “Fault diagnosis of blowout preventer system using artificial neural networks: a comparative study,” The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1409–1424, 2021.

B. M. Lourenco, P. Henriques, M. Elsa, and G. Kai, “A self-organizing map and a normalizing multi-layer perceptron approach to baselining in prognostics under dynamic regimes [J],” Neurocomputing, vol. 456, pp. 268–287, 2021.

Y. Wang, Z. Fang, H. Hong, R. Costache, and X. Tang, “Flood susceptibility mapping by integrating frequency ratio and index of entropy with multilayer perceptron and classification and regression tree [J],” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 289, pp. 112449–112449, 2021.

M. M. Tafarroj, G. Zarabian Ghaeini, J. A. Esfahani, and K. C. Kim, “Multi-purpose prediction of the various edge cut twisted tape insert characteristics: multilayer perceptron network modeling,” Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, vol. 145, no. 4, pp. 2005–2020, 2021.

C. G. Otele, M. A. Onabid, P. S. Assembe, and M. Nkenlifack, “Updated lithological map in the Forest zone of the centre, south and east regions of Cameroon using multilayer perceptron neural network and Landsat images,” Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 120–134, 2021.

O. O. Michel, Y. Ying, F. Wenyi, C. Chen, and K. S. Kaiko, “Examining land use/land cover change and its prediction based on a multilayer perceptron Markov approach in the Luki biosphere reserve, Democratic Republic of Congo,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 6898–6898, 2021.

N. L. Chau, N. T. Tran, and T. P. Dao, “A hybrid approach of density-based topology, multilayer perceptron, and water cycle-moth flame algorithm for multi-stage optimal design of a flexure mechanism,” Engineering with Computers, pp. 1–33, 2021.

F. M. Ghazali, W. M. Ahmad, K. C. Srivastava et al., “A study of creatinine level among patients with dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes mellitus using multilayer perceptron and multiple linear regression,” Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 795–800, 2021.

T. T. Nghi and L. Q. Khuong, “A study on communication breakdowns between native and non-native speakers in English speaking classes,” Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 1–6, 2021.

A. K. Lakew, S. Teshome, and D. Negede, “Introducing corpus-informed spoken grammar instruction in EFL classrooms: the Ethiopian experience,” Corpus Pragmatics, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1–24, 2021.

A. Rosay, K. Riou, F. Carlier, and P. Leroux, “Multi-layer perceptron for network intrusion detection,” Annals of Telecommunications, pp. 1–24, 2021.

A. García Gutiérrez, D. Domínguez, D. López, and J. Gonzalo, “Atmospheric boundary layer wind profile estimation using neural networks applied to lidar measurements,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 3659–3669, 2021.

H. Liu, K. Fan, B. He, and W. Wang, “Unmanned aerial vehicle acoustic localization using multilayer perceptron,” Applied Artificial Intelligence, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 537–548, 2021.

R. F. Mansour and A. Al-Marghilnai, “Glaucoma detection using novel perceptron based convolutional multi-layer neural network classification,” Multidimensional Systems and Signal Processing, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1217–1235, 2021.

V. Chasiotis, F. Nadi, and A. Filios, “Evaluation of multilayer perceptron neural networks and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems for the mass transfer modeling of Echium amoenum Fisch. & C. A. Mey.[J],” Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, vol. 101, no. 15, pp. 6514–6524, 2021.

A. A. Afuwape, Y. Xu, J. H. Anajemba, and G. Srivastava, “Performance evaluation of secured network traffic classification using a machine learning approach,” Computer Standards & Interfaces, vol. 78, pp. 103545–103549, 2021.

I. Westby, X. Yang, T. Liu, and H. Xu, “FPGA acceleration on a multi-layer perceptron neural network for digit recognition,” The Journal of Supercomputing, vol. 77, no. 12, pp. 14356–14373, 2021.