Multi-Dialect Speech Recognition in English Using Attention on Ensemble of Experts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the presence of a wide variety of dialects, training dialect-specific models for each dialect is a demanding task. Previous studies have explored training a single model that is robust across multiple dialects. These studies have used either multi-condition training, multi-task learning, end-to-end modeling, or ensemble modeling. In this study, we further explore using a single model for multi-dialect speech recognition using ensemble modeling. First, we build an ensemble of dialect-specific models (or experts). Then we linearly combine the outputs of the experts using attention weights generated by a long short-term memory (LSTM) network. For comparison purposes, we train a model that jointly learns to recognize and classify dialects using multi-task learning and a second model using multi-condition training. We train all of these models with about 60,000 hours of speech data collected in American English, Canadian English, British English, and Australian English. Experimental results reveal that our best proposed model achieved an average 4.74% word error rate reduction (WERR) compared to the strong baseline model.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it