REVIEW 2 cited by
Adapting an ASR Foundation Model for Spoken Language Assessment
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
A crucial part of an accurate and reliable spoken language assessment system is the underlying ASR model. Recently, large-scale pre-trained ASR foundation models such as Whisper have been made available. As the output of these models is designed to be human readable, punctuation is added, numbers are presented in Arabic numeric form and abbreviations are included. Additionally, these models have a tendency to skip disfluencies and hesitations in the output. Though useful for readability, these attributes are not helpful for assessing the ability of a candidate and providing feedback. Here a precise transcription of what a candidate said is needed. In this paper, we give a detailed analysis of Whisper outputs and propose two solutions: fine-tuning and soft prompt tuning. Experiments are conducted on both public speech corpora and an English learner dataset. Results show that we can effectively alter the decoding behaviour of Whisper to generate the exact words spoken in the response.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Fine-tuning Whisper on Low-Resource Languages for Real-World Applications
A data generation pipeline that converts sentence-level Swiss German recordings into long-form audio lets a fine-tuned Whisper Large-v2 beat prior state-of-the-art transcription models without losing timestamp prediction.
-
Which one Performs Better? Wav2Vec or Whisper? Applying both in Badini Kurdish Speech to Text (BKSTT)
A new Badini Kurdish speech corpus and a comparison of Wav2Vec2 versus Whisper show Wav2Vec2 achieves 82.67% accuracy versus Whisper's 53.17%.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.