You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
Mismatching problem between the source and target noisy corpora severely hinder the practical use of the machine-learning-based voice activity detection (VAD). In this paper, we try to address this problem in the transfer learning prospective. Transfer learning tries to find a common learning machine or a common feature subspace that is shared by both the source corpus and the target corpus. The denoising deep neural network is used as the learning machine. Three transfer techniques, which aim to learn common feature representations, are used for analysis. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the transfer learning schemes on the mismatch problem.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: We describe a single convolutional neural network architecture that, given a sentence, outputs a host of language processing predictions: part-of-speech tags, chunks, named entity tags, semantic roles, semantically similar words and the likelihood that the sentence makes sense (grammatically and semantically) using a language model. The entire network is trained jointly on all these tasks using weight-sharing, an instance of multitask learning. All the tasks use labeled data except the language model which is learnt from unlabeled text and represents a novel form of semi-supervised learning for the shared tasks. We show how both multitask learning and semi-supervised learning improve the generalization of the shared tasks, resulting in state-of-the-art-performance.

[2]: In this paper we present a novel transliteration technique which is based on deep belief networks. Common approaches use finite state machines or other methods similar to conventional machine translation. Instead of using conventional NLP techniques, the approach presented here builds on deep belief networks, a technique which was shown to work well for other machine learning problems. We show that deep belief networks have certain properties which are very interesting for transliteration and possibly also for translation and that a combination with conventional techniques leads to an improvement over both components on an Arabic-English transliteration task.

[3]: The exponential increase in the availability of online reviews and recommendations makes sentiment classification an interesting topic in academic and industrial research. Reviews can span so many different domains that it is difficult to gather annotated training data for all of them. Hence, this paper studies the problem of domain adaptation for sentiment classifiers, hereby a system is trained on labeled reviews from one source domain but is meant to be deployed on another. We propose a deep learning approach which learns to extract a meaningful representation for each review in an unsupervised fashion. Sentiment classifiers trained with this high-level feature representation clearly outperform state-of-the-art methods on a benchmark composed of reviews of 4 types of Amazon products. Furthermore, this method scales well and allowed us to successfully perform domain adaptation on a larger industrial-strength dataset of 22 domains.
In respect of transfer learning and deep learning, there has been some similar work with the proposed schemes. For example, in [3] , Glorot adopted a domain adaptation scheme that is exactly the same as Scheme 2 of this paper for the sentiment classification problem. In [1] , Collobert and Weston proposed a joint training scheme for the multitask learning problem of natural language processing, whose key idea is similar with Scheme 3. The architecture of [1] is also successfully applied to machine translation [2] . However, Scheme 3 is different from [1] [2] in that our Scheme 3 pre-train the top hidden-layer of DDNN with set @math , while the architecture of [1] [2] try to learn a subspace of word mapping in the top-hidden layer with a strong constraint that one word in the lookup table of @math should have a matching word in that of @math .