Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Geolocation-Aware Robust Spoken Language Identification

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Injecting language geolocation signals into a speech encoder improves dialect-aware spoken language identification.

desk verdict Solid empirical LID paper with a useful conditioning recipe; the geographic mechanism is plausible but not yet isolated from a generic auxiliary-target effect. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.17148 v1 pith:FJGGFDPJ submitted 2025-08-23 cs.CL cs.SD

Qingzheng Wang , Hye-jin Shim , Jiancheng Sun , Shinji Watanabe This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.SD
keywords spokenlanguageidentificationgeolocationconditioningdialectandaccentrobustnessself-supervisedspeechmodelsauxiliarytasklearningcross-domaingeneralizationintermediatelayerlanguage-levelmetadata
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

The paper tries to show that a language's geographic location, encoded as a fixed 299-dimensional vector of distances to reference points on the globe, can be used as a cheap, label-derived signal to make spoken language identification treat dialects and accents of the same language as one class. It does this in two steps: predict the geolocation vector from speech representations as an auxiliary task, and inject those predictions back into selected intermediate layers of the encoder as conditioning signals. Across in-domain and out-of-domain multilingual test sets, the conditioned model improves macro-average accuracy over a strong baseline, with the largest gains on dialect and domain-shifted sets. Trained on 157 languages, the system reports state-of-the-art accuracy on FLEURS (97.7%) and a 9.7% relative improvement on the ML-SUPERB 2.0 dialect development set, using only language-level metadata rather than utterance-level location labels.

What carries the argument

The central object is the geolocation vector: a 299-dim encoding of a language's estimated coordinates as normalized great-circle distances to 299 reference points on a spherical Fibonacci lattice. The mechanism couples an auxiliary prediction task—a linear projector maps speech embeddings to this vector under mean-squared error—with a conditioning step in which the intermediate prediction is detached and passed through a linear projection added frame-wise to the hidden states feeding the next transformer layer. Detachment blocks classification gradients from reshaping the vector; layer position and projection style (shared/independent, frozen/trainable) are tuned, with deep layers 32–44 and

What would settle it

Train the same architecture with geolocation vectors replaced by (a) randomly permuted assignments of the same vectors to languages and (b) random fixed 299-dim vectors per language, keeping losses and layer choices identical. If dialect-dev accuracy stays near 80.7% (VoxLingua107-only) or 86.8% (combined), geographic content is not the cause; if it collapses, geographic structure is doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that conditioning an SSL-based language identifier on language-level geolocation makes it treat dialects and accents of the same language as one class. The model predicts a 299-dim geolocation vector from both the final embedding and selected intermediate encoder layers, detaches the intermediate predictions, and injects them into the hidden states of later layers. With shared, trainable projections at layers 32–44, macro accuracy reaches 88.9% under VoxLingua107-only training; combined training on 157 languages reports 97.7% on FLEURS and 86.8% on the ML-SUPERB 2.0 dialect set (a 9.7% relative gain). The paper takes this as evidence that coarser, language-level geograph

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the geographic structure in the geolocation vector—not just having an extra label-derived vector to predict—is what helps the model unify dialects and accents; the paper does not run a control with random or unrelated 299-dimensional targets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dialect and accent variants of the same language can be classified as one language without dialect-specific labels; the model raises ML-SUPERB 2.0 dialect development accuracy to 86.8%, a 9.7% relative improvement over prior systems.
  • Language-level geolocation metadata is sufficient, so no utterance-level location labels are required and the method applies to any language with estimated coordinates.
  • The conditioning acts as a domain-generalization regularizer: out-of-domain gains appear on VoxPopuli and Babel even when training only on VoxLingua107.
  • Layer placement is decisive: injecting at deep layers 32–44 outperforms early-layer and all-layer conditioning, so the benefit comes from where semantic representations are stable.
  • Scaling to 157 languages and 9,865 hours pushes FLEURS accuracy to 97.7% and ML-SUPERB 2.0 development to 88.6%, establishing new state-of-the-art numbers under the paper's evaluation protocol.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An untested control would decide whether the geographic structure matters: replacing geolocation vectors with random 299-dimensional label-derived vectors (or randomly permuted geography–language assignments) under the same loss and layer recipe. If accuracy holds, the mechanism is generic auxiliary conditioning.
  • The same conditioning recipe could transfer to other tasks where a language or dialect identity is a factor, such as accent-robust ASR routing or code-switched speech processing, since it needs only a fixed per-language vector.
  • A zero-shot extension is possible: languages absent from the training set still have estimated coordinates, so their geolocation vectors could be supplied at inference to ask whether the model generalizes to unseen languages without any training utterances.
  • Language-level and utterance-level geolocation are complementary and untested together; combining the coarse auxiliary target here with fine-grained utterance-location prediction might yield further dialect-domain gains or prove redundant.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a geolocation-aware spoken language identification (LID) system built on MMS-1B. It uses lang2vec 299-dimensional language-level geolocation vectors, computed from Glottolog coordinates via great-circle distances to reference points, as an auxiliary regression target. The predicted vectors are injected into selected intermediate layers of the SSL encoder as conditioning signals, with a detach operation and a conditioning projection module; the downstream embedding also predicts geolocation. Experiments are run in two training setups: VoxLingua107-only and combined training on VoxLingua107, Babel, FLEURS, ML-SUPERB 2.0, and VoxPopuli. The central empirical claim is that geolocation conditioning improves robustness to dialectal/accented variation and domain shift, with the best VL107-only configuration (layers 32-44, shared trainable projections) reaching 88.9 macro accuracy. With combined training the system is reported as new state-of-the-art on FLEURS (97.7%) and ML-SUPERB 2.0 dialect (86.8%). The paper includes ablations on layer position, projection sharing/trainability, removal of the downstream geolocation loss, and removal of the detach operation.

Significance. If the geographic mechanism is real, this is a meaningful contribution: it uses only language-level geolocation labels, which are already available in typological databases, and shows stronger dialect robustness than a matched baseline. The controlled comparison in Table III (rows 1 vs. 14) is the paper's best evidence, and the detach ablation (row 20) shows that the conditioning path itself matters. The authors also release code, model weights, and training logs, which is commendable. However, the central attribution to geography rather than to generic auxiliary-task conditioning is not established: no control with a random or permuted dense target is run, and the geolocation vectors are deterministic re-encodings of the language label. The significance is therefore conditional on this missing control.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.B, III.D; Table III (rows 1 vs. 14); Table I] The geolocation vector is a deterministic function of the language label (Glottolog coordinates transformed to distances), so the auxiliary regression re-encodes supervision already available in the classification label. The paper attributes the dialect-set gains (73.4 to 78.8) to 'geolocation' semantics, but it never compares against a matched dense continuous target that is not geographic, such as a fixed random vector per language or a permutation of the geolocation vectors across languages. Table I compares geolocation only with inventory, phonology, and syntax, all of which are also deterministic label-derived encodings, so it does not control for the auxiliary-task/conditioning mechanism. Since the title, abstract, and Section V-B claim a geographic mechanism, a permuted-vector or random-dense-target rerun is necessary to distinguish geographic content from generic auxiliary-task r
  2. [Section IV.A, Table II, Table IV] The combined-training SOTA claims are not controlled. Table II marks Babel, FLEURS, ML-SUPERB 2.0, and VoxPopuli as 'Seen' under combined training, meaning the model is trained on the training splits of all evaluation domains. Table IV then compares this model to external systems (XEUS, MMS 1B LIDCTC, OWSM, Geo 1B) that did not necessarily see those domains. The headline FLEURS 97.7% and ML-SUPERB 2.0 dialect 86.8% are therefore not evidence of cross-domain generalization, and the abstract's '9.7% relative improvement' is relative to an external baseline rather than a matched one. Moreover, no combined-training baseline without geolocation is reported, so the contribution of geolocation in the SOTA setup is not isolated. A combined-trained baseline and an explicit separation of seen-domain versus unseen-domain claims are needed.
  3. [Section V.B, Eq. (12), Table III (rows 14 and 20)] The detach ablation is informative, but its interpretation needs nuance. Removing detach lowers ML-SUPERB 2.0 dialect accuracy by 5.0% (78.8 to 73.8). This shows that preventing classification gradients from distorting the predicted vector matters, but it does not show that the undistorted vector is geographic rather than any stable per-language conditioning vector. The same caveat applies to the compactness analysis in Section V.C and Fig. 2: tighter English clustering is consistent with any per-language auxiliary signal that encourages class-internal compactness. The paper should either add the random/permuation control or soften the mechanistic language.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (16)] The notation Z_n in Eq. (16) is overloaded: after conditioning at layer n, all subsequent encoder outputs are computed from conditioned inputs, so Z_n for n > first selected layer is not the same function of the input as in the unconditioned baseline. Please clarify that these denote the actual outputs of the conditioned network.
  2. [Section V.C, Table V] The dialect-set improvements are reported on 8 languages, and several columns move by less than a few points. No confidence intervals or significance tests are given, and with 20 experimental configurations in Table III some of the per-language differences may be noise. Reporting variability or at least acknowledging the small evaluation set would be useful.
  3. [Section II.A] The sentence 'The integration of geographic information into spoken language identification remains unexplored' is too strong in light of the immediately following citation to Foley et al. [17], which is a prior work on geolocation for LID. Suggest rewording to 'has received little attention' or similar.
  4. [General] A few typos and formatting issues: the table captions mention color highlighting (orange/bold) that is not visible in the text, and Section III.A says 'ECAPA-TDNN, followed by MMS-1B in Fig. 1' where the intended ordering is unclear. These are cosmetic but should be fixed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: derivation is self-contained; geolocation target being label-derived is a control limitation, not a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The core contribution is an auxiliary geolocation prediction loss and an intermediate-layer conditioning mechanism, evaluated on held-out test splits of VoxLingua107, Babel, FLEURS, ML-SUPERB 2.0, and VoxPopuli. The geolocation vectors are a fixed, externally supplied transformation of language identity (lang2vec/Glottolog), and the model learns to predict them from speech; the paper does not fit a parameter to the test set and then call it a prediction. The SOTA numbers come from a standard train/test split (combined training includes training splits of the benchmark datasets, not test splits). The only self-citations are prior work on LID-aware CTC and toolkit papers, which are not load-bearing. One caveat: because the geolocation target is a deterministic function of the language label, the auxiliary task re-encodes supervision already present in the classification label, so the experiments do not isolate geographic content from generic auxiliary conditioning (no random-label control). This is a limitation of causal attribution, not a circular derivation: the reported improvements are empirical and could be false or confounded, but they are not forced by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on tuning choices (λ, γ, layer set, projection type) and on three substantive assumptions: that Glottolog-derived coordinates capture dialect-relevant acoustic structure, that deterministic re-encodings of the language label are informative auxiliary targets, and that evaluating only on languages overlapping VoxLingua107 supports the broader claims. No invented entities are introduced; geolocation vectors come from the external lang2vec resource.

free parameters (5)
  • λ (geolocation loss weight) = 0.2
    Weights Lclass against geolocation losses in Eqs. 9 and 17; tuned over a predefined set (Section IV.C).
  • γ (intermediate vs downstream geolocation loss weight) = 0.4
    Balances Lgeo and the mean intermediate Ln_geo in Eq. 17; tuned (Section IV.C); ablation γ=1 removes the downstream geolocation loss (experiment 19).
  • Conditioned layer set M = {32, 36, 40, 44} (strategy 32-44)
    Selected by comparing four strategies (0-12, 16-28, 32-44, 0-44) on development macro average (Table III).
  • CondProj configuration = shared, trainable
    Chosen empirically across shared/independent and frozen/trainable; best macro average in Table III (row 14).
  • AAMSoftmax hyperparameters (K, m, s) = K=3, m=0.5, s=30
    Standard hyperparameters adopted from ESPnet-SPK [38]; hand-chosen constants for the classification loss, not central to the geolocation claim.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Glottolog-derived language coordinates, as distance-encoded by lang2vec, capture dialect-relevant phonetic structure.
    Section III.B builds the auxiliary target and conditioning signal on these vectors; the only evidence that this structure helps is the empirical gain itself (Section V), with no control isolating geographic content from any dense target.
  • domain assumption Auxiliary targets that are deterministic re-encodings of the language label (geolocation, inventory, phonology, syntax in Table I) can usefully reshape SSL embedding geometry for LID.
    The mechanism (Sections III.C-D) treats the geolocation regression as information beyond the classification label, although each language maps to exactly one target vector.
  • domain assumption Evaluating only on languages that overlap the VoxLingua107 training set is sufficient to support the stated SOTA and robustness claims.
    Section IV.A restricts evaluation to overlapping languages, so per-dataset accuracy covers fewer languages than the official test sets; the 157-language claim is never directly evaluated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Geolocation-Aware Robust Spoken Language Identification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FJGGFDPJ

@misc{pith2026250817148,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Geolocation-Aware Robust Spoken Language Identification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FJGGFDPJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.17148}
}
read the original abstract

While Self-supervised Learning (SSL) has significantly improved Spoken Language Identification (LID), existing models often struggle to consistently classify dialects and accents of the same language as a unified class. To address this challenge, we propose geolocation-aware LID, a novel approach that incorporates language-level geolocation information into the SSL-based LID model. Specifically, we introduce geolocation prediction as an auxiliary task and inject the predicted vectors into intermediate representations as conditioning signals. This explicit conditioning encourages the model to learn more unified representations for dialectal and accented variations. Experiments across six multilingual datasets demonstrate that our approach improves robustness to intra-language variations and unseen domains, achieving new state-of-the-art accuracy on FLEURS (97.7%) and 9.7% relative improvement on ML-SUPERB 2.0 dialect set.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Scaling speech tech- nology to 1,000+ languages,

    V . Pratap, A. Tjandra, B. Shi, P. Tomasello et al., “Scaling speech tech- nology to 1,000+ languages,” Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 25, no. 97, pp. 1–52, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Towards robust speech representation learning for thousands of languages,

    W. Chen, W. Zhang, Y . Peng, X. Li et al. , “Towards robust speech representation learning for thousands of languages,” in Proc. EMNLP, 2024, pp. 10 205–10 224

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    XLS-R: Self- supervised cross-lingual speech representation learning at scale,

    A. Babu, C. Wang, A. Tjandra, K. Lakhotia et al. , “XLS-R: Self- supervised cross-lingual speech representation learning at scale,” in Proc. Interspeech, 2021, pp. 2278–2282

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, T. Xu, G. Brockman et al. , “Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision,” in Proc. ICML, 2023, pp. 28 492–28 518

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    OWSM v3.1: Better and faster open Whisper-style speech models based on E-Branchformer,

    Y . Peng, J. Tian, W. Chen, S. Arora et al. , “OWSM v3.1: Better and faster open Whisper-style speech models based on E-Branchformer,” in Proc. Interspeech, 2024, pp. 352–356

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Google USM: Scaling automatic speech recognition beyond 100 languages,

    Y . Zhang, W. Han, J. Qin, Y . Wang et al. , “Google USM: Scaling automatic speech recognition beyond 100 languages,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.01037, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    V oxLingua107: a dataset for spoken language recognition,

    J. Valk and T. Alum ¨ae, “V oxLingua107: a dataset for spoken language recognition,” in Proc. SLT, 2021, pp. 652–658

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Seamless: Multilingual expressive and streaming speech translation,

    L. Barrault, Y .-A. Chung, M. C. Meglioli, D. Dale et al. , “Seamless: Multilingual expressive and streaming speech translation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.05187, 2023

    arXiv 2023

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Seam- lessM4T: Massively multilingual & multimodal machine translation,

    L. B. Barrault, Y .-A. Chung, M. C. Meglioli, D. Dale et al. , “Seam- lessM4T: Massively multilingual & multimodal machine translation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.11596 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    OWSM v4: Improving open Whisper-style speech models via data scaling and cleaning,

    Y . Peng, S. Muhammad, Y . Sudo, W. Chenet al., “OWSM v4: Improving open Whisper-style speech models via data scaling and cleaning,” in Proc. Interspeech, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Efficient self- supervised learning representations for spoken language identification,

    H. Liu, L. P. G. Perera, A. W. Khong, E. S. Chng et al., “Efficient self- supervised learning representations for spoken language identification,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing , vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 1296–1307, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Self-supervised speech representations are more phonetic than semantic,

    K. Choi, A. Pasad, T. Nakamura, S. Fukayama et al., “Self-supervised speech representations are more phonetic than semantic,” in Proc. Interspeech, 2024, pp. 4578–4582

    2024

  5. [13]

    What can an accent identifier learn? probing phonetic and prosodic information in a wav2vec2-based accent identification model,

    M. Yang, R. C. M. C. Shekar, O. Kang, and J. H. L. Hansen, “What can an accent identifier learn? probing phonetic and prosodic information in a wav2vec2-based accent identification model,” in Proc. Interspeech , 2023, pp. 1923–1927

    2023

  6. [14]

    URIEL and lang2vec: Representing languages as typological, geographical, and phylogenetic vectors,

    P. Littell, D. R. Mortensen, K. Lin, K. Kairis et al. , “URIEL and lang2vec: Representing languages as typological, geographical, and phylogenetic vectors,” in Proc. EACL (Volume 2, Short Papers) , 2017, pp. 8–14

    2017

  7. [15]

    The ML-SUPERB 2.0 challenge: Towards inclusive ASR benchmarking for all language varieties,

    W. Chen, C. Meng, J. Shi, M. Bartelds et al. , “The ML-SUPERB 2.0 challenge: Towards inclusive ASR benchmarking for all language varieties,” in Proc. Interspeech, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    FLEURS: Few-shot learning evaluation of universal representations of speech,

    A. Conneau, M. Ma, S. Khanuja, Y . Zhang et al., “FLEURS: Few-shot learning evaluation of universal representations of speech,” in Proc. SLT, 2023, pp. 798–805

    2023

  9. [17]

    Where are you from? Geolocating speech and applications to language iden- tification,

    P. Foley, M. Wiesner, B. Odoom, L. P. Garcia Perera et al. , “Where are you from? Geolocating speech and applications to language iden- tification,” in Proc. NAACL (Long Papers) , K. Duh, H. Gomez, and S. Bethard, Eds., 2024, pp. 5114–5126

    2024

  10. [18]

    Geographically-informed language identification,

    J. Dunn and L. Edwards-Brown, “Geographically-informed language identification,” in Proc. LREC-COLING, 2024, pp. 7672–7682

    2024

  11. [19]

    Improving speech recognition accuracy of local POI using geographical models,

    S. Cao, Y . Zhang, X. Feng, and L. Ma, “Improving speech recognition accuracy of local POI using geographical models,” in Proc. SLT, 2021, pp. 180–185

    2021

  12. [20]

    Geographic language models for automatic speech recognition,

    X. Xiao, H. Chen, M. Zylak, D. Sosa et al. , “Geographic language models for automatic speech recognition,” in Proc. ICASSP, 2018, pp. 6124–6128

    2018

  13. [21]

    Intermediate loss regularization for CTC-based speech recognition,

    J. Lee and S. Watanabe, “Intermediate loss regularization for CTC-based speech recognition,” in Proc. ICASSP, 2021, pp. 6224–6228

    2021

  14. [22]

    DEJA-VU: Double feature presentation and iterated loss in deep transformer networks,

    A. Tjandra, C. Liu, F. Zhang, X. Zhang et al. , “DEJA-VU: Double feature presentation and iterated loss in deep transformer networks,” in Proc. ICASSP, 2020, pp. 6899–6903

    2020

  15. [23]

    Improving multilingual speech models on ML-SUPERB 2.0: Fine-tuning with data augmentation and LID-aware CTC,

    Q. Wang, J. Sun, Y . Peng, and S. Watanabe, “Improving multilingual speech models on ML-SUPERB 2.0: Fine-tuning with data augmentation and LID-aware CTC,” in Proc. Interspeech, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Relaxing the conditional independence assumption of CTC-based ASR by conditioning on intermediate pre- dictions,

    J. Nozaki and T. Komatsu, “Relaxing the conditional independence assumption of CTC-based ASR by conditioning on intermediate pre- dictions,” in Proc. Interspeech, 2021, pp. 3735–3739

    2021

  17. [25]

    Improving massively multilin- gual ASR with auxiliary CTC objectives,

    W. Chen, B. Yan, J. Shi, Y . Peng et al., “Improving massively multilin- gual ASR with auxiliary CTC objectives,” in Proc. ICASSP, 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  18. [26]

    CA-SSLR: Condition-aware self-supervised learning representation for generalized speech processing,

    Y .-J. Lu, J. Liu, T. Thebaud, L. Moro-Velazquez et al. , “CA-SSLR: Condition-aware self-supervised learning representation for generalized speech processing,” in Proc. NeurIPS, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech representations,

    A. Baevski, Y . Zhou, A. Mohamed, and M. Auli, “wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech representations,” Proc. NeurIPS, vol. 33, pp. 12 449–12 460, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit et al., “Attention is all you need,” in Proc. NeurIPS, 2017, pp. 6000–6010

    2017

  21. [29]

    Deep contextualized word representations,

    M. E. Peters, M. Neumann, M. Iyyer, M. Gardner et al. , “Deep contextualized word representations,” in Proc. NAACL, 2018, pp. 2227– 2237

    2018

  22. [30]

    SUPERB: Speech processing universal performance benchmark,

    S. wen Yang, P.-H. Chi, Y .-S. Chuang, C.-I. J. Lai et al. , “SUPERB: Speech processing universal performance benchmark,” in Proc. Inter- speech, 2021, pp. 1194–1198

    2021

  23. [31]

    ECAPA-TDNN: Emphasized channel attention, propagation and aggregation in TDNN based speaker verification,

    B. Desplanques, J. Thienpondt, and K. Demuynck, “ECAPA-TDNN: Emphasized channel attention, propagation and aggregation in TDNN based speaker verification,” in Proc. Interspeech, 2020, pp. 3830–3834

    2020

  24. [32]

    Squeeze-and-excitation networks,

    J. Hu, L. Shen, and G. Sun, “Squeeze-and-excitation networks,” in Proc. CVPR, 2018, pp. 7132–7141

    2018

  25. [33]

    Res2Net: A new multi-scale backbone architecture,

    S.-H. Gao, M.-M. Cheng, K. Zhao, X.-Y . Zhang et al. , “Res2Net: A new multi-scale backbone architecture,” IEEE TPAMI, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Attentive statistics pooling for deep speaker embedding,

    K. Okabe, T. Koshinaka, and K. Shinoda, “Attentive statistics pooling for deep speaker embedding,” in Proc. Interspeech, 2018, pp. 2252–2256

    2018

  27. [35]

    Batch Normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift,

    S. Ioffe and C. Szegedy, “Batch Normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift,” in Proc. ICML, 2015, pp. 448–456

    2015

  28. [36]

    ArcFace: Additive angular margin loss for deep face recognition,

    J. Deng, J. Guo, N. Xue, and S. Zafeiriou, “ArcFace: Additive angular margin loss for deep face recognition,” in Proc. CVPR, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    The SpeakIn system for V oxCeleb speaker recognition challenge 2021,

    M. Zhao, Y . Ma, M. Liu, and M. Xu, “The SpeakIn system for V oxCeleb speaker recognition challenge 2021,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01989 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    ESPnet-SPK: Full pipeline speaker embedding toolkit with reproducible recipes, self-supervised front-ends, and off-the-shelf models,

    J.-w. Jung, W. Zhang, J. Shi, Z. Aldeneh et al. , “ESPnet-SPK: Full pipeline speaker embedding toolkit with reproducible recipes, self-supervised front-ends, and off-the-shelf models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.17230, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Glottolog 5.2,

    H. Hammarstr ¨om, R. Forkel, M. Haspelmath, and S. Bank, “Glottolog 5.2,” http://glottolog.org, 2025, accessed on 2025-06-02

    2025

  32. [40]

    Measurement of areas on a sphere using Fibonacci and latitude–longitude lattices,

    ´A. Gonz ´alez, “Measurement of areas on a sphere using Fibonacci and latitude–longitude lattices,” Mathematical geosciences, vol. 42, pp. 49– 64, 2010

    2010

  33. [41]

    Speech recognition and keyword spotting for low-resource languages: Babel project research at cued,

    M. J. Gales, K. M. Knill, A. Ragni, and S. P. Rath, “Speech recognition and keyword spotting for low-resource languages: Babel project research at cued,” in Proc. SLTU, 2014, pp. 16–23

    2014

  34. [42]

    VoxPopuli: A large-scale multilingual speech corpus for representation learning, semi-supervised learning and interpretation,

    C. Wang, M. Riviere, A. Lee, A. Wu et al., “VoxPopuli: A large-scale multilingual speech corpus for representation learning, semi-supervised learning and interpretation,” in Proc. ACL-IJCNLP (Long Papers), 2021, pp. 993–1003

    2021

  35. [43]

    Interspeech 2025 ML-SUPERB 2.0 challenge,

    W. Chen, J. Shi, S.-H. Wang, S. Watanabe et al. , “Interspeech 2025 ML-SUPERB 2.0 challenge,” https://multilingual.superbbenchmark.org/ challenge-interspeech2025/challenge overview, accessed on 2025-06- 02

    2025

  36. [44]

    fairseq: A fast, extensible toolkit for sequence modeling,

    M. Ott, S. Edunov, A. Baevski, A. Fan et al., “fairseq: A fast, extensible toolkit for sequence modeling,” in Proc. NAACL-HLT, 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” in Proc. ICLR (Poster), 2015

    2015

  38. [46]

    ESPnet: End-to-end speech processing toolkit,

    S. Watanabe, T. Hori, S. Karita, T. Hayashi et al., “ESPnet: End-to-end speech processing toolkit,” in Proc. Interspeech, 2018, pp. 2207–2211

    2018

  39. [47]

    Improving language identification of accented speech,

    K. Kukk and T. Alum ¨ae, “Improving language identification of accented speech,” in Proc. Interspeech, 2022, pp. 1288–1292

    2022

  40. [48]

    A compact end-to-end model with local and global context for spoken language identification,

    F. Jia, N. R. Koluguri, J. Balam, and B. Ginsburg, “A compact end-to-end model with local and global context for spoken language identification,” in Proc. Interspeech, 2023, pp. 5321–5325

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.