REVIEW 2 cited by
DiarizationLM: Speaker Diarization Post-Processing with Large Language Models
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
read the original abstract
In this paper, we introduce DiarizationLM, a framework to leverage large language models (LLM) to post-process the outputs from a speaker diarization system. Various goals can be achieved with the proposed framework, such as improving the readability of the diarized transcript, or reducing the word diarization error rate (WDER). In this framework, the outputs of the automatic speech recognition (ASR) and speaker diarization systems are represented as a compact textual format, which is included in the prompt to an optionally finetuned LLM. The outputs of the LLM can be used as the refined diarization results with the desired enhancement. As a post-processing step, this framework can be easily applied to any off-the-shelf ASR and speaker diarization systems without retraining existing components. Our experiments show that a finetuned PaLM 2-S model can reduce the WDER by rel. 55.5% on the Fisher telephone conversation dataset, and rel. 44.9% on the Callhome English dataset.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Thinking in Directivity: Speech Large Language Model for Multi-Talker Directional Speech Recognition
A speech large language model trained on beamformed multi-channel audio performs directional speech recognition and source localization across 12 discrete angles on simulated smart glasses data.
-
Do We Still Need Audio? Rethinking Speaker Diarization with a Text-Based Approach Using Multiple Prediction Models
A T5-based text-only diarization model reports WDER 4.9 on short dialogues, beating audio baselines, but the result hinges on an uncontrolled in-domain versus out-of-domain comparison.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.