Exploring Cross-Utterance Speech Contexts for Conformer-Transducer Speech Recognition Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates four types of cross-utterance speech contexts modeling approaches for streaming and non-streaming Conformer-Transformer (C-T) ASR systems: i) input audio feature concatenation; ii) cross-utterance Encoder embeddings concatenation; iii) cross-utterance Encoder embeddings pooling projection; or iv) a novel chunk-based approach applied to C-T models for the first time. An efficient batch training scheme is proposed for contextual C-Ts that uses spliced speech utterances within each minibatch to minimize the synchronization overhead while preserving the sequential order of cross-utterance speech contexts. Experiments are conducted on four benchmark speech datasets across three languages: the English GigaSpeech and Mandarin Wenetspeech corpora used in contextual C-T models pre-training; and the English DementiaBank Pitt and Cantonese JCCOCC MoCA elderly speech datasets used in domain fine-tuning. The best performing contextual C-T systems consistently outperform their respective baselines using no cross-utterance speech contexts in pre-training and fine-tuning stages with statistically significant average word error rate (WER) or character error rate (CER) reductions up to0.9%,1.1%,0.51%, and0.98%absolute (6.0%,5.4%,2.0%, and3.4%relative) on the four tasks respectively. Their performance competitiveness against Wav2vec2.0-Conformer, XLSR-128, and Whisper models highlights the potential benefit of incorporating cross-utterance speech contexts into current speech foundation models.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".