Towards Effective and Efficient Non-Autoregressive Decoders for Conformer and LLM-Based ASR Using Block-Based Attention Mask
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems often rely on autoregressive (AR) Transformer decoder architectures, which limit efficient inference parallelization due to their sequential nature. To this end, non-autoregressive (NAR) approaches aim primarily to achieve significant decoding speedup while the maintaining recognition accuracy that is comparable to AR baselines. This paper proposes a novel NAR block-based attention mask decoder (AMD) that effectively improves decoding efficiency while maintaining ASR accuracy, and also offering flexibility in balancing the performance-efficiency trade-off on both Conformer and large language model (LLM)-based ASR systems. The proposed AMD performs parallel inference within contiguous blocks of output labels while maintaining monotonic left-to-right prediction between blocks. A one-pass beam search algorithm is designed to dynamically fuse Connectionist Temporal Classification (CTC), AR decoder, and AMD probabilities. Experiments are conducted on normal speech LS960 and DBank elderly speech across: a) The Conformer encoder-decoder ASR system with filterbank input features; b) its integration with WavLM features; and c) further advancement by integrating an LLM-based decoder. On the LS960 task, the proposed AMD empowered tripartite decoder achieves decoding speedup ratios of up to 1.44x, 1.55x, and 2.31x under the three model configurations over the CTC + AR baselines, without statistically significant WER increases. When operating with real-time factors (RTFs) comparable to the baselines, the tripartite decoder produces statistically significant WER reductions of 0.19%, 0.62% and 0.13% absolute (4.3%, 16.3%, and 3.8% relative). Similar improvements are also obtained on the DBank task, where the tripartite decoder accelerates decoding by up to 1.38x, 1.64x and 1.61x without statistically significant WER increase, and yields statistically significant WER reductions of 0.46%, 0.38% and 0.41% absolute (1.8%, 1.8%, and 2.0% relative) when operating with RTFs comparable to the CTC + AR baselines.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".