Multilingual pronunciation by analogy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Automatic pronunciation of unknown words (i.e., those not in the system dictionary) is a difficult problem in text-to-speech (TTS) synthesis. Currently, many data-driven approaches have been applied to the problem, as a backup strategy for those cases where dictionary matching fails. The difficulty of the problem depends on the complexity of spelling-to-sound mappings according to the particular writing system of the language. Hence, the degree of success achieved varies widely across languages but also across dictionaries, even for the same language with the same method. Further, the sizes of the training and test sets are an important consideration in data-driven approaches. In this paper, we study the variation of letter-to-phoneme transcription accuracy across seven European languages with twelve different lexicons. We also study the relationship between the size of dictionary and the accuracy obtained. The largest dictionaries of each language have been partitioned into ten approximately equal-sized subsets and combined to give ten different-sized test sets. In view of its superior performance in previous work, the transcription method used is pronunciation by analogy (PbA). Best results are obtained for Spanish, generally believed to have a very regular (‘shallow’) orthography, and poorest results for English, a language whose irregular spelling system is legendary. For those languages for which multiple dictionaries were available (i.e., French and English), results were found to vary across dictionaries. For the relationship between dictionary size and transcription accuracy, we find that as dictionary size grows, so performance grows monotonically. However, the performance gain decelerates (tends to saturate) as the dictionary increases in size; the relation can simply be described by a logarithmic regression, one parameter of which (α) can be taken as quantifying the depth of orthography of a language. We find that α for a language is significantly correlated with transcription performance on a small dictionary (approximately 10,000 words) for that language, but less so for asymptotic performance. This may be because our measure of asymptotic performance is unreliable, being extrapolated from the fitted logarithmic regression.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".