Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 21 references

CA-SSLR: Condition-Aware Self-Supervised Learning Representation for Generalized Speech Processing

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a frozen self-supervised speech encoder, steered by lightweight language and speaker conditioners, can beat full fine-tuning and transfer to tasks it was never adapted for.

desk verdict The conditioner mechanism is real and the oracle ablation is honest, but the headline 'beats full fine-tuning' claim rests on an undertrained multi-task baseline and needs to be redone. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04425 v1 pith:FGAED6GV submitted 2024-12-05 eess.AS cs.CLcs.LGcs.SD

Yen-Ju Lu , Jing Liu , Thomas Thebaud , Laureano Moro-Velazquez , Ariya Rastrow , Najim Dehak , Jesus Villalba This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.AScs.CLcs.LGcs.SD
keywords self-supervisedspeechrepresentationsparameter-efficientadaptationconditioninglanguageidentificationautomaticrecognitionspeakerverificationmultilinguallinearmodulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a frozen self-supervised speech encoder, with lightweight conditioners inserted into its layers, can outperform full fine-tuning on multilingual speech tasks and generalize to tasks it was never adapted for. The idea is to make the encoder aware of the current language and speaker by injecting embeddings estimated from its own intermediate layers, using per-channel scale and bias modulations with identity initialization. On the ML-SUPERB benchmark and the VoxCeleb-1 speaker-verification test set, the method reports a 10% relative reduction in language-identification errors, a 37% relative improvement in ASR character error rate, and a 27% decrease in speaker-verification equal error rate, with far fewer trainable parameters than fine-tuning. If the results hold, a single adapted encoder could serve many tasks and low-resource languages that standard fine-tuning handles poorly.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the time-channel attention conditioner (TCAC): a trainable module in each SSL layer that computes a time attention weight $\alpha_t$, a per-channel scale $\gamma_c$, and a per-channel bias $\beta_c$ from a conditioning embedding $z$ derived from intermediate language-identification or speaker-verification embeddings, then applies the modulation $\tilde{S} = \gamma_c\alpha_t S + \beta_c\alpha_t$. Its identity initialization ($\alpha_t=1$, $\gamma_c=1$, $\beta_c=0$) guarantees that the inserted modules change nothing at start, which is what lets the pretrained representation persist. The hierarchical part is that $z$ is recomputed every few layers from an aggregated weighted sum of the SSL layers so far, so the conditioning sharpens as depth increases while all frozen encoder weights remain untouched.

What would settle it

Re-run the multi-task full fine-tuning baseline on the same ML-SUPERB + VoxCeleb data for enough epochs (matching CA-SSLR's training budget) and measure LID accuracy, ASR CER, and SV EER; if a converged fine-tuned model approaches or exceeds the frozen-baseline and CA-SSLR numbers, the paper's central generalization claim would lose its baseline.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that conditioning, not fine-tuning, is the right way to adapt a pretrained self-supervised speech representation (SSLR) to multilingual and multi-speaker tasks. CA-SSLR keeps the base encoder frozen and inserts time-channel attention conditioners (TCACs) that rescale and shift each layer's hidden features by a per-channel scale $\gamma$ and bias $\beta$ derived from language and speaker embeddings. These embeddings are re-estimated hierarchically from intermediate language-identification and speaker-verification outputs as the signal moves through the network, so the adaptation compounds with depth while the original SSL parameters never change. The conditioners are initialized as identity maps ($\alpha=\gamma=1$, $\beta=0$), so the adapted model first reproduces the pretrained behavior exactly and then deviates only as supervised labels require. The reported outcome is that this approach matches or beats full fine-tuning on the trained tasks, and, more importantly, improves performance on tasks it never trained on—for example, a language-conditioned encoder that was never adapted for speaker verification still reduces EER on VoxCeleb-1 by 27%.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's conclusion that CA-SSLR beats full fine-tuning hinges on the baseline fine-tuning models being fairly trained; the multi-task fine-tuning baseline in the main table was run for only a few epochs and scored worse than the frozen encoder, which is atypical of a properly converged fine-tuned model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single frozen SSL encoder can serve multiple tasks simultaneously, because only the lightweight conditioners and decoder projection layers are trained; no per-task encoder copies are needed.
  • Low-resource and few-shot languages benefit disproportionately, since the language conditioner injects identity information that audio-only SSL pretraining failed to learn from scarce data.
  • Unseen-task transfer follows: adapters trained for language identification improved downstream ASR and speaker verification without any task-specific re-tuning, outperforming full fine-tuning in those transfer scenarios.
  • Training and inference cost drop relative to full fine-tuning and to running separate task-specific models, making the approach feasible on limited compute.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves untested whether the same conditioner path works for accent, emotion, or speaking style; the fact that two utterance-level attributes already respond suggests it might.
  • The decisive comparison the paper does not report is a converged multi-task fine-tuning baseline; the authors trained their fine-tuning baseline for only a few epochs, and that baseline underperformed the frozen encoder, so a fully trained baseline would weaken or confirm the margin.
  • The ground-truth-language ablation implies real-world gains are capped by the internal language estimator's accuracy, so improving the LID module may matter more than further conditioner tuning.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CA-SSLR, a conditioning framework for frozen self-supervised speech encoders (XLSR and mHuBERT) in which lightweight channel-wise or time-channel attention conditioners modulate encoder hidden representations using language and speaker embeddings estimated from intermediate LID/SV decoders. The authors evaluate on ML-SUPERB LID and ASR and on VoxCeleb SV, reporting that CA-SSLR improves over the frozen encoder, over Houlsby adapters and LoRA, and in some settings over full fine-tuning, while using far fewer trainable parameters and adding modest real-time factor overhead. A ground-truth oracle ablation (Table 4) and parameter-efficiency plots (Figure 3) support the core mechanism, but the comparative claim against full fine-tuning rests on a multi-task FT baseline that the authors themselves describe as undertrained and that underperforms the frozen encoder.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work is a useful contribution: it shows that a single frozen SSL encoder can be adapted to multiple multilingual tasks through small, hierarchically injected conditioners, with an explicit oracle upper bound (Table 4: CER drops from 29.0 to 17.2 with ground-truth language conditioning) and a clear parameter-efficiency argument (CC-TCAC uses ~19-23M trainable parameters versus 200-300M for full fine-tuning). The paper also provides RTF measurements and a head-to-head comparison with Houlsby adapters and LoRA, and it commits to releasing code. The main weakness is not the conditioner mechanism itself but the evidence for the headline claim that CA-SSLR outperforms full fine-tuning, which currently rests on an undertrained multi-task FT baseline. The inconsistency in reported LID gains and the absence of variance estimates further weaken confidence in the specific numerical claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.3, Table 3] The claim that CA-SSLR outperforms full fine-tuning is not supported by the evidence as presented. The multi-task FT baseline is explicitly described as trained 'for a few epochs' and its performance degrades below the frozen encoder (e.g., XLSR LID accuracy drops from 89.0 to 81.5, ASR CER rises from 29.0 to 35.6, SV EER worsens from 1.29 to 7.23). This is an atypical outcome that is more plausibly a training-protocol artifact than evidence of catastrophic forgetting, especially since the single-task ASR-FT in Table 1b improves CER from 29.0 to 17.1 with a normal budget. To support the 'better than fine-tuning' conclusion, the authors must run a properly converged multi-task FT baseline (reporting epochs, LR schedule, and convergence criterion) and either confirm or retract the comparison. If the converged baseline recovers near-frozen performance, the margins over fine-tuning would shrink substantially even though CA-SSLR's gains over the frozen encoder and adapters may remain.
  2. [Abstract, Sec. 1, Conclusion] The headline LID improvement is inconsistent across the paper: the abstract and conclusion state a 10% relative reduction in LID errors, while the Section 1 bullet list states an '27% relative reduction in LID errors'. Table 3 shows per-setting LID gains that vary widely, from essentially no change on the 10-min XLSR condition (89.0 to 89.1) to about 28-29% relative error reduction on the 1-hour TCAC condition (90.9 to 93.4/93.5). The authors need to specify which experimental condition produces each headline number, define whether the percentage is relative or absolute, and make the abstract, introduction, and conclusion agree. As written, a reader cannot tell which of the reported gains is the intended central result.
  3. [Tables 1-3, Appendix A.2] No error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported for the main results in Tables 1-3, so several comparisons that are central to the discussion are difficult to assess. For example, the LID gains for CA-XLSR L,S over CA-XLSR L in Table 3 are small (89.1 vs. 88.6 on 10-min; 88.1 vs. 90.0 on 1-hour), and the claim that the speaker conditioner helps LID rests on a 0.5-point accuracy difference. Appendix A.2 states that variations were 'within 0.2% CERs range' but only refers to Table 6 and Figure 3, not to LID or SV metrics and not to the main tables. Please report the number of runs, standard deviations, or at least per-seed ranges for the headline comparisons, or add a statement about which differences are within run-to-run noise.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, Table 12] Section 4.1 says that Lithuanian (lit) outcomes were omitted from the evaluation because part of the Lithuanian data was substituted with Italian, yet Table 12 in Appendix E still reports lit LID accuracy and CER for both XLSR and mHuBERT. This inconsistency needs to be resolved either by removing the Lithuanian rows or by explaining how the lit results relate to the data-quality issue.
  2. [Sec. 5.4 heading] The heading 'Analysis of the TCA Conditioner' appears to be a typo for 'TCAC Conditioner' (time-channel attention conditioner). Please correct the abbreviation throughout for consistency with Section 3.1.
  3. [Sec. 5.2, paragraph on results] The text says 'CA-XLSRL(CC, 3L) excelled among the three approaches,' but the surrounding table and discussion compare more than three configurations (dual CC, dual TCAC, CC 4L, CC 3L, TCAC 3L). Please clarify which set of approaches is being compared and avoid ambiguous phrasing.
  4. [Throughout] The dataset name 'VoxCeleb' is inconsistently typeset as 'V oxCeleb' (e.g., in the abstract, Section 4.1, and several table captions). A global spelling fix would improve readability.
  5. [Abstract, Sec. 1, Conclusion] The abstract and Section 1 use '37% improvement in ASR CER' while the conclusion says '33% reduction in Character Error Rate'. These are not obviously the same quantity; please align the wording and the reference condition so the reader can verify the claimed improvement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: CA-SSLR's conditioning mechanism is an architectural self-conditioning loop with no label leakage, and the oracle ground-truth ablation is explicitly an upper bound rather than a reported prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is architectural and empirical rather than definitional. Equations (1)-(5) define a modulation transformation for injecting conditioning features; the identity initialization (alpha=1, gamma=1, beta=0) is a stated design choice that makes the initial conditioners inert, not a fitted input that guarantees the reported gains. At inference, conditioning features come from the model's own LID/SV heads, which are trained on auxiliary labels and applied to the same audio signal; this is a self-conditioning architecture, not label leakage or a prediction that is equivalent to its input. The only ground-truth conditioning is the explicitly labeled oracle ablation in Table 4, which the paper presents as an upper bound, and the reported headline numbers are external benchmark results on ML-SUPERB and VoxCeleb. The self-citations to Villalba et al. (2022, 2023) justify hyperparameter choices (loss margins) and are not load-bearing for the central claim. The undertrained multi-task full-fine-tuning baseline in Section 5.3 is a legitimate experimental-fairness concern, but it is not a circularity: an unfavorable comparison does not mean the paper's result is defined as its own input. No circular step matching the enumerated patterns is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not introduce new physical or conceptual entities. Its free parameters are architectural and scheduling choices (conditioning intervals, embedding dimensions, data mix) validated on the benchmark itself. The key load-bearing assumptions are that frozen SSL features are modulatable and that intermediate LID and SV embeddings are reliable enough to condition upper layers.

free parameters (4)
  • LID conditioning interval = 3 layers (4 used in ablation)
    Chosen from Table 2, where the 3-layer interval gave the best balance of CER, LID accuracy, and RTF; the choice affects both performance and compute.
  • SV conditioning interval = 6 layers
    Set to 6 layers and not ablated; it changes the strength of speaker conditioning and the RTF.
  • Condition embedding dimension = 256 for both LID and SV
    Design choice used throughout; no ablation is shown for the embedding size.
  • Training data mix (10-min vs 1-h ML-SUPERB plus VoxCeleb2) = two configurations
    The two configurations produce different SV EER values (e.g., CA-XLSRL,S CC gives 1.04 vs 0.94); the paper draws conclusions from both without specifying which is the primary setting.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Frozen SSL encoders (XLSR, mHuBERT) provide transferable acoustic representations that can be modulated without updating their weights.
    The entire method in Section 4.2 assumes that conditioning frozen features is sufficient and that the pretrained model does not need weight updates.
  • domain assumption Language and speaker embeddings estimated from lower SSL layers are informative conditioning signals for later layers.
    This is the core mechanism of Sections 3.2-3.3; if these intermediate embeddings are noisy or uninformative, the conditioner would add little or no benefit.
  • domain assumption Identity initialization (alpha=1, gamma=1, beta=0) preserves pretrained behavior at the start of training.
    Section 3.3 relies on this to prevent catastrophic forgetting; the paper does not measure whether the identity mapping actually holds after the first gradient step.
  • domain assumption The ML-SUPERB and VoxCeleb label sets are correct and representative.
    Section 4.1 reveals that a portion of Lithuanian data was mislabeled as Italian, which shows label quality is not perfect; the paper excludes that language but assumes the rest of the labels are sound.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CA-SSLR: Condition-Aware Self-Supervised Learning Representation for Generalized Speech Processing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FGAED6GV

@misc{pith2026241204425,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CA-SSLR: Condition-Aware Self-Supervised Learning Representation for Generalized Speech Processing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FGAED6GV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04425}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce Condition-Aware Self-Supervised Learning Representation (CA-SSLR), a generalist conditioning model broadly applicable to various speech-processing tasks. Compared to standard fine-tuning methods that optimize for downstream models, CA-SSLR integrates language and speaker embeddings from earlier layers, making the SSL model aware of the current language and speaker context. This approach reduces the reliance on input audio features while preserving the integrity of the base SSLR. CA-SSLR improves the model's capabilities and demonstrates its generality on unseen tasks with minimal task-specific tuning. Our method employs linear modulation to dynamically adjust internal representations, enabling fine-grained adaptability without significantly altering the original model behavior. Experiments show that CA-SSLR reduces the number of trainable parameters, mitigates overfitting, and excels in under-resourced and unseen tasks. Specifically, CA-SSLR achieves a 10% relative reduction in LID errors, a 37% improvement in ASR CER on the ML-SUPERB benchmark, and a 27% decrease in SV EER on VoxCeleb-1, demonstrating its effectiveness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04425 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. CA-SSLR scheme and its time-channel attention conditioner. Only the conditioner and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Architecture of the CA-SSLR model employing hierarchical self-conditioning with Time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. CER versus trainable parameters on XLSR model for Normal and Few-shots languages, demon￾strating the adaptation ability for the TCA conditioner. TCAC. The TCAC provided the best overall results, improving Normals and Few-shots by 38.6% and 18.5%, respectively, w.r.t. baseline. Parameter Efficiency in CER Reduction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Xls-r: Self-supervised cross-lingual speech representation learning at scale

    Arun Babu, Changhan Wang, Andros Tjandra, Kushal Lakhotia, Qiantong Xu, Naman Goyal, Kritika Singh, Patrick von Platen, Yatharth Saraf, Juan Pino, et al. Xls-r: Self-supervised cross-lingual speech representation learning at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.09296,

    arXiv

  2. [6]

    Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin De Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly

    ISSN 1939-3539. Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin De Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for nlp. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2790–2799. PMLR,

    work page 1939

  3. [7]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685,

    arXiv

  4. [8]

    Ctrl: A conditional transformer language model for controllable generation

    Nitish Shirish Keskar, Bryan McCann, Lav R Varshney, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. Ctrl: A conditional transformer language model for controllable generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.05858,

    arXiv 1909

  5. [9]

    A study on data augmentation of reverberant speech for robust speech recognition

    Tom Ko, Vijayaditya Peddinti, Daniel Povey, Michael L Seltzer, and Sanjeev Khudanpur. A study on data augmentation of reverberant speech for robust speech recognition. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5220–5224. IEEE,

    work page 2017

  6. [11]

    V oxceleb: a large-scale speaker identifica- tion dataset

    Arsha Nagrani, Joon Son Chung, and Andrew Zisserman. V oxceleb: a large-scale speaker identifica- tion dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.08612,

    arXiv

  7. [14]

    Ml-superb: Multilingual speech universal performance benchmark

    Jiatong Shi, Dan Berrebbi, William Chen, Ho-Lam Chung, En-Pei Hu, Wei Ping Huang, Xuankai Chang, Shang-Wen Li, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Hung-yi Lee, et al. Ml-superb: Multilingual speech universal performance benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10615, 2023a. Jiatong Shi, William Chen, Dan Berrebbi, Hsiu-Hsuan Wang, Wei-Ping Huang, En-Pei Hu, Ho-Lam Chuang, X...

    arXiv 2023

  8. [16]

    Unified speech-text pre-training for speech translation and recognition

    Yun Tang, Hongyu Gong, Ning Dong, Changhan Wang, Wei-Ning Hsu, Jiatao Gu, Alexei Baevski, Xian Li, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Michael Auli, et al. Unified speech-text pre-training for speech translation and recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05409,

    arXiv

Show all 21 references
  1. [17]

    URL https://www.isca-speech

    doi: 10.21437/Odyssey.2022-30. URL https://www.isca-speech. org/archive/odyssey_2022/villalba22b_odyssey.html. Jesús Villalba, Jonas Borgstrom, Maliha Jahan, Saurabh Kataria, Leibny Paola Garcia, Pedro Torres- Carrasquillo, and Najim Dehak. Advances in Language Recognition in ...

    2022 doi

  2. [18]

    Changhan Wang, Morgane Riviere, Ann Lee, Anne Wu, Chaitanya Talnikar, Daniel Haziza, Mary Williamson, Juan Pino, and Emmanuel Dupoux

    doi: 10.21437/Interspeech.2023-1094. Changhan Wang, Morgane Riviere, Ann Lee, Anne Wu, Chaitanya Talnikar, Daniel Haziza, Mary Williamson, Juan Pino, and Emmanuel Dupoux. V oxpopuli: A large-scale multilingual speech corpus for representation learning, semi-supervised learning...

    2023 arXiv

  3. [19]

    Espnet: End-to-end speech processing toolkit

    Shinji Watanabe, Takaaki Hori, Shigeki Karita, Tomoki Hayashi, Jiro Nishitoba, Yuya Unno, Nelson Enrique Yalta Soplin, Jahn Heymann, Matthew Wiesner, Nanxin Chen, et al. Espnet: End-to-end speech processing toolkit. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.00015,

    arXiv

  4. [20]

    Superb: Speech processing universal performance benchmark

    Shu-wen Yang, Po-Han Chi, Yung-Sung Chuang, Cheng-I Jeff Lai, Kushal Lakhotia, Yist Y Lin, Andy T Liu, Jiatong Shi, Xuankai Chang, Guan-Ting Lin, et al. Superb: Speech processing universal performance benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.01051,

    arXiv

  5. [21]

    Ip-adapter: Text compatible image prompt adapter for text-to-image diffusion models

    Hu Ye, Jun Zhang, Sibo Liu, Xiao Han, and Wei Yang. Ip-adapter: Text compatible image prompt adapter for text-to-image diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06721,

    arXiv

  6. [2015]

    Automatic speaker verification spoofing and deepfake detection using wav2vec 2.0 and data augmentation

    Hemlata Tak, Massimiliano Todisco, Xin Wang, Jee-weon Jung, Junichi Yamagishi, and Nicholas Evans. Automatic speaker verification spoofing and deepfake detection using wav2vec 2.0 and data augmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.12233,

    arXiv

  7. [2017]

    Textless speech-to-speech translation on real data

    11 Ann Lee, Hongyu Gong, Paul-Ambroise Duquenne, Holger Schwenk, Peng-Jen Chen, Changhan Wang, Sravya Popuri, Yossi Adi, Juan Pino, Jiatao Gu, et al. Textless speech-to-speech translation on real data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.08352,

    arXiv

  8. [2018]

    The 2021 NIST Speaker Recognition Evaluation

    Seyed Omid Sadjadi, Craig Greenberg, Elliot Singer, Lisa Mason, and Douglas Reynolds. The 2021 NIST Speaker Recognition Evaluation. In Proc. The Speaker and Language Recognition Workshop (Odyssey 2022), pages 322–329,

    2021

  9. [2019]

    Brecht Desplanques, Jenthe Thienpondt, and Kris Demuynck

    doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2019.00482. Brecht Desplanques, Jenthe Thienpondt, and Kris Demuynck. Ecapa-tdnn: Emphasized chan- nel attention, propagation and aggregation in tdnn based speaker verification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.07143,

    2019

  10. [2020]

    Accidental learners: Spoken language identification in multilingual self-supervised models

    Travis M Bartley, Fei Jia, Krishna C Puvvada, Samuel Kriman, and Boris Ginsburg. Accidental learners: Spoken language identification in multilingual self-supervised models. In ICASSP 2023- 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), ...

    2023

  11. [2021]

    Wavlm: Large-scale self-supervised pre-training for full stack speech processing

    Sanyuan Chen, Chengyi Wang, Zhengyang Chen, Yu Wu, Shujie Liu, Zhuo Chen, Jinyu Li, Naoyuki Kanda, Takuya Yoshioka, Xiong Xiao, et al. Wavlm: Large-scale self-supervised pre-training for full stack speech processing. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 16(6):...

    2023 arXiv

  12. [2022]

    Ramon Sanabria and Florian Metze

    doi: 10.21437/Odyssey.2022-45. Ramon Sanabria and Florian Metze. Hierarchical multitask learning with ctc. In 2018 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT), pages 485–490. IEEE,

    2022 doi

  13. [2023]

    An exploration of self- supervised pretrained representations for end-to-end speech recognition

    Xuankai Chang, Takashi Maekaku, Pengcheng Guo, Jing Shi, Yen-Ju Lu, Aswin Shanmugam Subramanian, Tianzi Wang, Shu-wen Yang, Yu Tsao, Hung-yi Lee, et al. An exploration of self- supervised pretrained representations for end-to-end speech recognition. In 2021 IEEE Automatic Spee...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.