Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 33 references

JCAPT: A Joint Modeling Approach for CAPT

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By fusing phonological attributes and learnable think tokens into a bidirectional Mamba encoder, JCAPT reports gains on both pronunciation scoring and mispronunciation detection on speechocean762: MDD F1 rises from 45.01% to 51.05% and…

desk verdict Plausible assembly with a real MDD gain, but the paper's own ablation tables contradict its central claim that the full model is consistently better. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19315 v2 pith:TN6KPC5I submitted 2025-06-24 cs.CL cs.AIeess.AS

Tzu-Hsuan Yang , Yue-Yang He , Berlin Chen This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.AIeess.AS
keywords computer-assistedpronunciationtrainingautomaticassessmentmispronunciationdetectionanddiagnosisMambaphonologicalfeaturesthinktokensmulti-tasklearningspeechocean762
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 is about making computer-assisted pronunciation training (CAPT) systems give better, more detailed feedback to second-language learners. It proposes JCAPT, a single model that handles both automatic pronunciation assessment (APA) and mispronunciation detection and diagnosis (MDD), and claims that combining a bidirectional Mamba encoder with phonological feature embeddings and appended learnable 'think tokens' improves both tasks at once. On the speechocean762 benchmark, the reported gains are an MDD F1 of 51.05% versus 45.01% for the previous joint model JAM, and an utterance-level completeness correlation of 0.551 versus 0.205. The authors take the small ablation drops to mean that fine-grained phoneme-level reasoning, rather than better acoustic features alone, is what drives the improvement.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a bidirectional Mamba encoder, i.e., a stack of selective state space model layers that process long phone sequences in linear time. Its input is a fused sequence: phone-level acoustic embeddings built from GOP, wav2vec 2.0, HuBERT, and WavLM features are added to canonical phoneme embeddings that concatenate a one-hot phone vector with a phonological attribute vector. A set of learnable think tokens is appended to the sequence so the encoder can perform extra internal computation before predictions. From the encoder output, aspect-specific attention pooling builds utterance-level representations, and separate heads produce phoneme-, word-, and utterance-level APA scores as well as phoneme-level MDD classifications. The argument for the gains is that the three components are complementary: phonological attributes ground the representations linguistically, think tokens add temporal reasoning capacity, and Mamba supplies efficient long-range context.

What would settle it

Rerun JAM and JCAPT on speechocean762 from the same raw audio, forced alignments, feature versions, and five-seed protocol; if the paired MDD F1 difference is not near the reported 6.04 points, or if reproducing JAM's 45.01% requires a different feature pipeline than the one used for JCAPT, then the outperformance claim is unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a joint APA and MDD framework built on Mamba can get better results than prior systems by adding two things to a standard phone-level feature pipeline: phonological attribute vectors that describe each canonical phone (such as voicing, manner, and place of articulation), and a set of learnable think tokens appended at the end of the encoder input. The paper reports that on speechocean762 JCAPT reaches phoneme-level MSE 0.066 and PCC 0.720, word-level stress PCC 0.270, utterance-level completeness PCC 0.551, and MDD F1 51.05%, compared with 45.01% for JAM. Ablations removing phonological features, think tokens, or both show the full model is best on most granularities, with think tokens mainly helping MDD recall and phonological features mainly helping phoneme- and word-level assessment. The authors frame this as the first CAPT system to bring together phonological attribution, selective state space modeling, and think-token prompting in one architecture.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the previously published baseline numbers were computed with the exact same feature extraction, alignment, data splits, and metric definitions as JCAPT, because the paper compares against those numbers without rerunning the baselines itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the paper's numbers, a joint CAPT system can gain more than six F1 points in mispronunciation detection without changing the acoustic front end, by changing the encoder and the symbolic inputs.
  • An utterance-level aspect that was nearly uncorrelated with human scores (completeness, PCC 0.205 in JAM) reaches 0.551 under JCAPT, so hard global scores are not necessarily limited by the acoustic features.
  • Since the Mamba encoder scales linearly in sequence length, the same joint recipe is a candidate for longer read-aloud or spontaneous L2 utterances at lower cost than transformer-based baselines.
  • The ablations point to a complementary split of labor: phonological features mostly lift phoneme- and word-level accuracy, while think tokens mostly lift MDD recall, and removing both degrades results more than removing either alone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An untested implication is that think tokens function as a trainable 'deliberation buffer'; one could compare hidden states before and after the appended tokens to see whether they accumulate phone-error information, a probe the paper does not run.
  • All experiments use read-aloud Mandarin-accented English from one benchmark, so whether the completeness and MDD gains transfer to spontaneous speech, other L1 backgrounds, or other languages is an open empirical question.
  • The ablations show that removing think tokens slightly improves precision while lowering recall, suggesting a simple confidence threshold or calibration step could push the reported 51.05% F1 higher without any architectural change.
  • Because the paper fixes the multi-task trade-off weight at 0.3 from the earlier JAM setup, sweeping this weight could reveal how much of the gain comes from the loss balance rather than from the architecture, a comparison the paper does not make.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents JCAPT, a joint model for automatic pronunciation assessment (APA) and mispronunciation detection and diagnosis (MDD). It combines a bidirectional Mamba encoder with canonical phoneme embeddings, phonological attributes, and appended learnable think tokens, then applies multi-level scoring heads. Experiments on speechocean762 report lower MSE and higher PCC than the JAM baseline, a large gain in utterance completeness (PCC 0.551 vs 0.205), and higher MDD F1 (51.05 vs 45.01). The authors conclude that the combination of Mamba, phonological features, and think tokens yields consistent improvements and interpretability.

Significance. If the main results were robust, the MDD F1 improvement and completeness gain would be practically meaningful for CAPT. The paper uses a public benchmark with standard metrics and reports averages over five runs, which is a reasonable evaluation skeleton. However, the central claim of consistent superiority is not supported by the reported numbers: the ablation evidence contradicts the causal attribution, one prosody metric is below the published baseline, and no variance or significance testing is provided. The paper would be significant after the claims are revised and the best configuration is confirmed.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.4, Tables 2 and 3] The statement that the full model 'consistently outperforms all ablated versions' is false on the reported numbers. Removing phonological features improves utterance completeness PCC (0.644 vs 0.551), fluency (0.840 vs 0.834), prosody (0.826 vs 0.824), utterance total (0.808 vs 0.806), MDD F1 (52.21 vs 51.05), and MDD recall (42.00 vs 40.23). The paper's headline benefits, MDD and completeness, are thus not attributable to the proposed combination, and the causal claim in §3.3 and the conclusion ('integrating phonological features... yields more accurate' performance) is internally unsupported.
  2. [§3.3, Table 1] The claim that JCAPT 'consistently outperforms previous models across all evaluation levels' is contradicted by Table 1: utterance prosody PCC is 0.824 for JCAPT versus 0.829 for JAM. Since prosody is one of the five utterance-level aspects, the correct statement is that JCAPT improves most metrics but not all; the authors should identify which differences are statistically significant.
  3. [§3.2, Table 1] The comparison to JAM and Joint-CAPT-L1 assumes that identical feature extraction, forced alignment, phone sets, data splits, and metric implementations were used. The paper says 'we adopted the same procedures' but provides no code, reruns, or precise versions of the baseline pipelines. Without this, the reported gains could reflect implementation differences rather than the proposed architecture; please release code or rerun the baselines in the same harness.
  4. [§3.2] Section 3.2 reports five independent runs but only averages; no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests are given. This is load-bearing because several central comparisons are small (e.g., phoneme MSE 0.066 vs 0.066, PCC 0.720 vs 0.716) and the ablation 'wins' noted above are not checked for statistical reliability. Please report variance and test the full-vs-ablated and JCAPT-vs-JAM differences.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 3 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'Abalation Studies' should be 'Ablation Studies'.
  2. [§3.4] The word 'Lately' at the start of the third ablation paragraph should be 'Finally' or 'Lastly'.
  3. [§2.1] The notation 'P hnonehot' appears to be a formatting error for the one-hot phoneme vector; please correct it.
  4. [§1] The claim that this is the first study to combine phonological attribution, SSM-based modeling, and prompting in CAPT should be softened or qualified, since reference [11] already applies a hierarchical selective SSM to CAPT; the authors should clarify the incremental contribution.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the evaluation is an external-benchmark comparison with standard metrics, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's claims are empirical comparisons on the public speechocean762 test set. The cited quantities (PCC, MSE, F1, recall, precision, PER) are computed from held-out predictions under standard evaluation protocols, not derived from any fitted constant or from the target metric itself. The α=0.3 loss weight is inherited from prior work [10] as a hyperparameter setting, not as a validated prediction, and the same is true for the feature-extraction pipeline 'adopted' from [10]; this is a reproducibility statement, not a circular load-bearing argument. The self-citations present ([10], [11]) support architectural choices and baseline configurations, but the central claim of outperformance is evaluated against the external benchmark and against ablations reported in Tables 2 and 3, so the conclusion does not reduce to the self-cited work. The notable internal inconsistency in Section 3.4, where the full model does not actually outperform the 'w/o phonological' variant on utterance completeness (0.551 vs 0.644 PCC) or MDD F1 (51.05 vs 52.21), is a correctness/validity concern about the paper's interpretation of its own results, not a circularity of the derivation. No equation defines an output in terms of an input prediction, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Therefore, no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or linguistic entities are introduced; 'think tokens' are learnable embeddings, a model component rather than an invented entity. The empirical claims depend on two hand-chosen hyperparameters (loss weight alpha and unreported think-token count) plus the reliability of forced alignment and benchmark labels.

free parameters (2)
  • alpha = 0.3
    Weight in Eq. 7 balancing APA and MDD losses; set to 0.3 following [10] without sensitivity analysis.
  • number of think tokens
    Extra computation tokens appended to the sequence (Section 2.3); the count is not reported, so its effect on results cannot be checked.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption speechocean762 human scores and phone-level transcriptions are treated as reliable ground truth
    All training and evaluation depend on the five-rater annotations and canonical/realized phone alignments being correct.
  • domain assumption Forced alignment correctly maps frame-level SSL and GOP features to canonical phone boundaries
    Section 2.1 uses forced alignment to construct phone-level vectors; misalignment would corrupt every phone- and word-level prediction.
  • domain assumption Frozen SSL features (wav2vec 2.0, HuBERT, WavLM) and GOP capture enough information for L2 pronunciation
    The model has no learned acoustic front-end; it relies on these pre-trained features.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of JCAPT: A Joint Modeling Approach for CAPT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TN6KPC5I

@misc{pith2026250619315,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: JCAPT: A Joint Modeling Approach for CAPT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TN6KPC5I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19315}
}
read the original abstract

Effective pronunciation feedback is critical in second language (L2) learning, for which computer-assisted pronunciation training (CAPT) systems often encompass two key tasks: automatic pronunciation assessment (APA) and mispronunciation detection and diagnosis (MDD). Recent work has shown that joint modeling of these two tasks can yield mutual benefits. Our unified framework leverages Mamba, a selective state space model (SSM), while integrating phonological features and think token strategies to jointly enhance interpretability and fine-grained temporal reasoning in APA and MDD. To our knowledge, this is the first study to combine phonological attribution, SSM-based modeling, and prompting in CAPT. A series of experiments conducted on the speechocean762 benchmark demonstrate that our model consistently outperforms prior methods, particularly on the MDD task.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19315 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overall architecture of the multi-task learning model for pronunciation assessment and mispronunciation detection and diagnosis. The system consists of feature extraction, Mamba layers for temporal modeling, and multi-level scoring modules including phoneme-level, word-level, and utterance-level regressors. aspect of APA that remains particularly challenging—can be substantially improved by subtler modeling of p… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    JCAPT: A Joint Modeling Approach for CAPT

    Introduction In the era of globalized communication, learning a second language (L2) has become increasingly essential. Computer- assisted pronunciation training (CAPT) systems have emerged as practical and scalable solutions. These systems provide learners with a low-pressure, self-directed environment to en- hance their pronunciation skills through imme...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Methodology Figure 1 schematically visualizes our proposed framework, JCAPT, which jointly models Automatic Pronunciation Assess- ment (APA) and Mispronunciation Detection and Diagnosis (MDD) through a parallel architecture. Our system consists of five key components: 1) a comprehensive feature extrac- tion module that integrates multiple speech represent...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Experiments and Results 3.1. Dataset We conducted our experiments on the speechocean762 dataset [26], a publicly available benchmark designed for research on automatic pronunciation assessment (APA) and mispronunci- ation detection and diagnosis (MDD). The dataset contains 5,000 English utterances produced by 250 Mandarin-speaking L2 learners, evenly divi...

    work page

  4. [4]

    think token

    Conclusion and Future Work In this work, we have put forward JCAPT, a unified CAPT framework that jointly addresses APA and MDD through a parallel architecture built upon the Mamba state space model. By integrating phonological features and adopting a “think token” strategy for fine-grained temporal reasoning, JCAPT enhances both diagnostic interpretabili...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Any findings and implications in the paper do not necessarily reflect those of the sponsor

    Acknowledgement This work was supported by the Language Training and Testing Center (LTTC), Taiwan. Any findings and implications in the paper do not necessarily reflect those of the sponsor

    work page

  6. [6]

    Duolingo. gamified learning through translation,

    P. Munday, “Duolingo. gamified learning through translation,” Journal of Spanish Language Teaching , vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 194– 198, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Elsa speak app: Automatic speech recognition (asr) for supplementing english pronunciation skills,

    A. Kholis, “Elsa speak app: Automatic speech recognition (asr) for supplementing english pronunciation skills,” Pedagogy: Jour- nal of English Language Teaching, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 01–14, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Transformer-based multi-aspect multi-granularity non-native en- glish speaker pronunciation assessment,

    Y . Gong, Z. Chen, I.-H. Chu, P. Chang, and J. Glass, “Transformer-based multi-aspect multi-granularity non-native en- glish speaker pronunciation assessment,” in ICASSP 2022 - 2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2022, pp. 7262–7266

    work page 2022

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Preserving phonemic distinctions for ordinal regres- sion: A novel loss function for automatic pronunciation assess- ment,

    B.-C. Yan, H.-W. Wang, Y .-C. Wang, J.-T. Li, C.-H. Lin, and B. Chen, “Preserving phonemic distinctions for ordinal regres- sion: A novel loss function for automatic pronunciation assess- ment,” in 2023 IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition and Under- standing Workshop (ASRU), 202...

    2023

  2. [10]

    An effective pronunciation as- sessment approach leveraging hierarchical transformers and pre- training strategies,

    B.-C. Yan, J.-T. Li, Y .-C. Wang, H.-W. Wang, T.-H. Lo, Y .-C. Hsu, W.-C. Chao, and B. Chen, “An effective pronunciation as- sessment approach leveraging hierarchical transformers and pre- training strategies,” inProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Co...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Ex- ploring non-autoregressive end-to-end neural modeling for en- glish mispronunciation detection and diagnosis,

    H.-W. Wang, B.-C. Yan, H.-S. Chiu, Y .-C. Hsu, and B. Chen, “Ex- ploring non-autoregressive end-to-end neural modeling for en- glish mispronunciation detection and diagnosis,” inICASSP 2022- 2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)...

    2022

  4. [12]

    An approach to mispronun- ciation detection and diagnosis with acoustic, phonetic and lin- guistic (apl) embeddings,

    W. Ye, S. Mao, F. Soong et al. , “An approach to mispronun- ciation detection and diagnosis with acoustic, phonetic and lin- guistic (apl) embeddings,” in ICASSP 2022 - 2022 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2022, pp. 6827–6831

    2022

  5. [13]

    Peppanet: Effective mispronunciation detection and diagnosis leveraging phonetic, phonological, and acoustic cues,

    B.-C. Yan, H.-W. Wang, and B. Chen, “Peppanet: Effective mispronunciation detection and diagnosis leveraging phonetic, phonological, and acoustic cues,” in2022 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT), 2023, pp. 1045–1051

    2023

  6. [14]

    A joint model for pronunci- ation assessment and mispronunciation detection and diagnosis with multi-task learning,

    H. Ryu, S. Kim, and M. Chung, “A joint model for pronunci- ation assessment and mispronunciation detection and diagnosis with multi-task learning,” INTERSPEECH, 2023, conference pa- per

    2023

  7. [15]

    Y . Y . He, B. C. Yan, T. H. Lo, M. S. Lin, Y . C. Hsu, and B. Chen, “Jam: A unified neural architecture for joint multi-granularity pro- nunciation assessment and phone-level mispronunciation detec- tion and diagnosis towards a comprehensive capt system,” inPro- ceedings of t...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Towards efficient and multifaceted computer-assisted pronunciation training leveraging hierarchical selective state space model and decoupled cross-entropy loss,

    F.-A. Chao and B. Chen, “Towards efficient and multifaceted computer-assisted pronunciation training leveraging hierarchical selective state space model and decoupled cross-entropy loss,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07575, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Phonological-level mispronunciation detection and diagnosis,

    M. Shahin and B. Ahmed, “Phonological-level mispronunciation detection and diagnosis,” Interspeech 2024, Sep. 2024, presented at Interspeech 2024, 1–5 September 2024, Kos, Greece

    2024

  10. [18]

    Effective graph-based modeling of articulation traits for mispronunciation detection and diagnosis,

    B.-C. Yan, H.-W. Wang, Y .-C. Wang, and B. Chen, “Effective graph-based modeling of articulation traits for mispronunciation detection and diagnosis,” in ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  11. [19]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,

    J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, F. Xia, E. Chi, Q. V . Le, D. Zhou et al., “Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,” Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems, vol. 35, pp. 24 824–24 837, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Contemplative mechanism for speech recognition: Speech encoders can think,

    T. J. Yang, A. Rosenberg, and B. Ramabhadran, “Contemplative mechanism for speech recognition: Speech encoders can think,” Proceedings of Interspeech, pp. 3455–3459, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Mamba: Linear-time sequence modeling with selective state spaces,

    A. Gu and T. Dao, “Mamba: Linear-time sequence modeling with selective state spaces,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00752, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Mambapeft: Explor- ing parameter-efficient fine-tuning for mamba,

    M. Yoshimura, T. Hayashi, and Y . Maeda, “Mambapeft: Explor- ing parameter-efficient fine-tuning for mamba,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03855, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Preserving phonemic distinctions for ordinal regres- sion: A novel loss function for automatic pronunciation assess- ment,

    B.-C. Yan, H.-W. Wang, Y .-C. Wang, J.-T. Li, C.-H. Lin, and B. Chen, “Preserving phonemic distinctions for ordinal regres- sion: A novel loss function for automatic pronunciation assess- ment,” in 2023 IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition and Under- standing Workshop (ASRU). IEE...

    2023

  16. [24]

    Phone-level pronunciation scoring and assessment for interactive language learning,

    S. M. Witt and S. J. Young, “Phone-level pronunciation scoring and assessment for interactive language learning,” Speech Com- munication, vol. 30, no. 2-3, pp. 95–108, 2000

    2000

  17. [25]

    Improved mispro- nunciation detection with deep neural network trained acoustic models and transfer learning based logistic regression classifiers,

    W. Hu, Y . Qian, F. K. Soong, and Y . Wang, “Improved mispro- nunciation detection with deep neural network trained acoustic models and transfer learning based logistic regression classifiers,” Speech Communication, vol. 67, pp. 154–166, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    Context-aware goodness of pronuncia- tion for computer-assisted pronunciation training,

    J. Shi, N. Huo, and Q. Jin, “Context-aware goodness of pronuncia- tion for computer-assisted pronunciation training,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.08647, 2020

    2008 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech repre- sentations,

    A. Baevski, Y . Zhou, A. Mohamed, and M. Auli, “Wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech repre- sentations,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 12 449–12 460, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Hubert: Self-supervised speech rep- resentation learning by masked prediction of hidden units,

    W.-N. Hsu, B. Bolte, Y .-H. H. Tsai, K. Lakhotia, R. Salakhut- dinov, and A. Mohamed, “Hubert: Self-supervised speech rep- resentation learning by masked prediction of hidden units,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Pro- cessing, vol. 29, pp. 3451–3460, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

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

    S. Chen, C. Wang, Z. Chen, Y . Wu, S. Liu, Z. Chen, J. Li, N. Kanda, T. Yoshioka, J. Wu, X. Xiao, L. Zhou, C. Li, S. Ren, Y . Zhang, F. Yu, Q. Fu, and F. Wei, “Wavlm: Large-scale self- supervised pre-training for full stack speech processing,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics i...

    2022

  22. [30]

    Dual-path mamba: Short and long-term bidirectional selective structured state space mod- els for speech separation,

    X. Jiang, C. Han, and N. Mesgarani, “Dual-path mamba: Short and long-term bidirectional selective structured state space mod- els for speech separation,” in ICASSP 2025-2025 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–5

    2025

  23. [31]

    Speechocean762: An open- source non-native english speech corpus for pronunciation assess- ment,

    J. Zhang, Z. Zhang, Y . Wang et al., “Speechocean762: An open- source non-native english speech corpus for pronunciation assess- ment,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.01378, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    The carnegie mellon pronouncing dictionary [cmudict. 0.6],

    R. Weide, “The carnegie mellon pronouncing dictionary [cmudict. 0.6],” Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, 2005

    2005

  25. [33]

    Mispronunciation detection and diagnosis in l2 english speech using multidistribution deep neural networks,

    K. Li, X. Qian, and H. Meng, “Mispronunciation detection and diagnosis in l2 english speech using multidistribution deep neural networks,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Lan- guage Processing, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 193–207, 2017

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.