BERSting at the screams: A benchmark for distanced, emotional and shouted speech recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some speech recognition tasks, such as automatic speech recognition (ASR), are approaching or have reached human performance in many reported metrics. Yet, they continue to struggle in complex, real-world, situations, such as with distanced speech. Previous challenges have released datasets to address the issue of distanced ASR, however, the focus remains primarily on distance, specifically relying on multi-microphone array systems. Here we present the B(asic) E(motion) R(andom phrase) S(hou)t(s) (BERSt) dataset. The dataset contains almost 4 h of English speech from 98 actors with varying regional and non-native accents. The data was collected on smartphones in the actors homes and therefore includes at least 98 different acoustic environments. The data also includes 7 different emotion prompts and both shouted and spoken utterances. The smartphones were places in 19 different positions, including obstructions and being in a different room than the actor. This data is publicly available for use and can be used to evaluate a variety of speech recognition tasks, including: ASR, shout detection, and speech emotion recognition (SER). We provide initial benchmarks for ASR and SER tasks, and find that ASR degrades both with an increase in distance and shout level and shows varied performance depending on the intended emotion. Our results show that the BERSt dataset is challenging for both ASR and SER tasks and continued work is needed to improve the robustness of such systems for more accurate real-world use.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.017 |
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".