Advancing African-Accented English Speech Recognition: Epistemic Uncertainty-Driven Data Selection for Generalizable ASR Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accents play a pivotal role in shaping human communication, enhancing our ability to convey and comprehend messages with clarity and cultural nuance. While there has been significant progress in Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR), African-accented English ASR has been understudied due to a lack of training datasets, which are often expensive to create and demand colossal human labor. Combining several active learning paradigms and the core-set approach, we propose a new multi-round adaptation process that uses epistemic uncertainty to automate annotation, significantly reducing the associated costs and human labor. This novel method streamlines data annotation and strategically selects data samples that contribute most to model uncertainty, enhancing training efficiency. We define a new U-WER metric to track model adaptation to hard accents. We evaluate our approach across several domains, datasets, and high-performing speech models. Our results show that our approach leads to a 27\% WER relative average improvement while requiring, on average, 45\% less data than established baselines. Our approach also improves out-of-distribution generalization for very low-resource accents, demonstrating its viability for building generalizable ASR models in the context of accented African ASR. We open-source the code \href{}{here}.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".