Evaluating context-invariance in unsupervised speech representations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unsupervised speech representations have taken off, with benchmarks (SUPERB, ZeroSpeech) demonstrating major progress on semi-supervised speech recognition, speech synthesis, and speech-only language modelling. Inspiration comes from the promise of ``discovering the phonemes'' of a language or a similar low-bitrate encoding. However, one of the critical properties of phoneme transcriptions is context-invariance: the phonetic context of a speech sound can have massive influence on the way it is pronounced, while the text remains stable. This is what allows tokens of the same word to have the same transcriptions -- key to language understanding. Current benchmarks do not measure context-invariance. We develop a new version of the ZeroSpeech ABX benchmark that measures context-invariance, and apply it to recent self-supervised representations. We demonstrate that the context-independence of representations is predictive of the stability of word-level representations. We suggest research concentrate on improving context-independence of self-supervised and unsupervised representations.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".