Data-independent Beamforming for End-to-end Multichannel Multi-speaker ASR

Can Cui; Emmanuel Vincent; Mostafa Sadeghi; Paul Magron

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 28 references

Data-independent Beamforming for End-to-end Multichannel Multi-speaker ASR

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · 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 replacing raw microphone channels with a fixed, training-free sector beamformer improves end-to-end multichannel multi-speaker ASR, reducing word error rate by up to 11% and raising speaker-counting accuracy by up…

desk verdict A simple training-free sector beamformer for multichannel ASR, clearly described and reproducible, but the headline 11% claim conflates beamforming with extra microphones. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.10234 v1 pith:TI344FRA submitted 2025-09-12 cs.SD

Can Cui , Paul Magron , Mostafa Sadeghi , Emmanuel Vincent This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.SD

keywords data-independentbeamformingmulti-speakerASRmultichannelangularsectorsserializedoutputtrainingMFCCAmeetingtranscriptionspatialfiltering

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's central claim is that a fixed, data-independent beamformer—one that simply integrates sound from four azimuth sectors—can make an end-to-end multichannel multi-speaker ASR system work better than feeding it the same number of raw microphone signals. The beamformed signals carry spatial information in a cleaner form, so the ASR model spends less capacity on noise and reverberation and captures speaker changes more reliably. On a real meeting corpus, the authors report up to 11% relative word-error-rate reduction and up to 27% relative improvement in speaker-counting accuracy compared with the raw-channel system, and a 10% relative WER reduction over an MVDR-based baseline. The practical consequence, if correct, is that spatial preprocessing for multichannel ASR does not need to be learned: a geometrically chosen fixed filter bank can reduce the input load and sharpen multi-speaker recognition.

What carries the argument

The central object is the closed-form, data-independent sector beamformer $\hat{\mathbf{w}}_s(f)$: the target spatial response is 1 inside the angular sector $\Psi_s$ and 0 outside, and minimizing the least-squares distance between the actual response and this target over the whole sphere yields Equation (5), an explicit filter computed from the array geometry alone. This beamformer maps $I$ microphone signals onto $S$ sector signals, so the ASR input size stays fixed while the acoustic content is pre-separated by direction. That cleaned, direction-conditioned representation is what lets the MFCCA (multi-frame cross-channel attention) encoder exploit spatial dependencies instead of learning to suppress noise and reverberation from raw channels.

What would settle it

Run the same system with speakers deliberately placed on or just outside the sector boundaries (for example azimuths 0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees, or below 10 degrees elevation) and compare WER against the raw-multichannel baseline; if the beamformed-input model no longer outperforms the raw-channel model, the improvement rests on the sector geometry matching the true speaker positions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors aim to establish that a group of beamformed signals—one per angular sector—is a better input to a multichannel, multi-speaker ASR system than the same number of raw microphone signals. They derive a closed-form, data-independent beamformer for each of four equally spaced 90-degree azimuth sectors (with elevation 10 to 60 degrees), compute the beams from either 4 or 8 microphones, and feed them to an MFCCA-based encoder trained with serialized output training. In their experiments the beamformed inputs reduce word error rate by up to 11% relative and improve speaker-counting accuracy by up to 27% relative compared with the raw multichannel baseline, and increasing the number of microphones behind each beam further improves recognition. They also report that their training-free beamforming outperforms a neural MVDR-based single-channel baseline by 10% relative WER.

Load-bearing premise

The fixed angular sector geometry—four 90-degree azimuth wedges and a 10-to-60-degree elevation window—is assumed to contain the actual speakers; if speakers sit near sector boundaries or outside that elevation range, the fixed beamformer attenuates their speech and the reported gains could reverse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Replacing the same number of raw microphone channels with sector-beamformed channels can reduce word error rate, with the largest reported gains (up to 11% relative) on a real meeting corpus.
Using more microphones to form each sector beam sharpens the spatial response at high frequencies and yields further WER reductions, so larger arrays improve ASR without increasing the number of channels the ASR sees.
Speaker counting accuracy rises with beamformed input, especially when three or four speakers are active, which matters for downstream diarization and meeting transcription.
A data-independent, training-free front end can be prepended to an existing multichannel ASR system without retraining or acoustic data, making the improvement portable across rooms and array geometries.
The proposed input also beats a data-dependent neural MVDR beamformer when both feed a comparable ASR, suggesting that learned optimal filtering is not necessary to realize spatial gains.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension the paper leaves implicit: the sector count $S$ could be tuned to the actual number and seating layout of participants, potentially giving larger gains in meetings with fewer than four speakers.
Because the gain likely comes partly from dereverberation and noise reduction rather than pure separation, ablating a 360-degree single-sector beam would isolate how much of the improvement is due to angular selectivity.
A testable follow-up: pair the fixed sector beams with a lightweight, time-varying sector selection driven by speaker activity, which would keep beamforming training-free while handling moving speakers.
If the pattern holds, feeding sector beams into ASR systems with more input channels (for example, 16 microphones) may keep improving accuracy, since the beamformer is not limited by the ASR input dimension.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The new piece here is modest but real: a data-independent, training-free beamformer that creates fixed spatial-sector channels and feeds them as separate inputs to an MFCCA-based SOT ASR system. The beamformer itself is textbook closed-form least squares, but the sector-based target and the idea of keeping beamformed outputs as multichannel ASR input are not in the cited prior work. The paper is well written, the derivation is clean, and code is released. That is worth credit.

The experiments also do some things right. The 4-microphone matched comparison on AMI shows a small but real gain (45.25 to 43.14 WER), suggesting the fixed sector beamformer can help MFCCA in real meetings. The MVDR baseline, while single-channel, is a reasonable sanity check. The paper is honest about simplifying assumptions like static speakers and fixed array geometry.

Where it wobbles is the headline number. The 11% WER reduction compares beamformed-8 input with raw-4 input, varying both beamforming and microphone count. No raw-8 baseline is given, so we cannot tell whether the gain comes from beamforming or simply from giving MFCCA more channels. The only matched 4-vs-4 comparison on LibriSpeech goes the other way (17.64 vs 16.30), which directly contradicts the abstract's blanket claim that beamformed signals improve over the same number of raw channels. The speaker-counting claim has the same confound, and the text's 39.94% does not match Table II's 36.94% in the 3-speaker row. These are fixable, but as written the central quantitative claims are overstated.

None of this is fatal. The method is simple, reproducible, and plausibly useful as a preprocessing front-end. But the paper needs major revision before publication: report raw-8 baselines, present all matched microphone-count comparisons, correct the numeric inconsistency, and soften the abstract to match what the experiments actually show.

I would send this to peer review rather than desk reject. The idea is clean and the code release makes it easy to check. With the comparisons fixed, it would be a solid workshop or conference paper. As is, the evaluation does not support the headline.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a training-free, data-independent sector-wise beamformer as a front-end for a multichannel end-to-end multi-speaker ASR system based on MFCCA. The beamformer is obtained in closed form by least-squares fitting of a target response that is an indicator function on angular sectors. The authors evaluate the approach on simulated multi-speaker LibriSpeech and real AMI meeting data, using 4 or 8 microphones to produce 4 beamformed channels that feed the ASR model. They report WER reductions up to 11% relative and speaker counting accuracy improvements up to 27% relative compared to a raw multichannel baseline, and they also compare against a neural MVDR baseline. The code is released for reproducibility.

Significance. The paper's methodological contribution is a transparent, closed-form, data-independent beamformer whose code is released, making the work reproducible and the derivation verifiable. If the claimed gains are isolated through properly matched comparisons, the approach would be a simple and potentially useful front-end for multichannel ASR. However, the headline improvements are presently confounded by microphone count, and the matched 4-microphone comparison shows only a modest gain on AMI and a regression on LibriSpeech. The significance therefore hinges on a revised experimental comparison that separates beamforming effects from channel-count effects.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and Section III.C.2 (Table I)] The headline 'up to 11% WER reduction' and the abstract's claim that beamformed signals improve ASR 'compared to using the same number of raw microphone signals' are not established, because the 11% figure compares 8-microphone beamformed input (22.96%) with a 4-microphone raw baseline (25.89%) in the 1-speaker row. The only same-microphone-count comparison on AMI gives a 4.7% relative improvement (43.14% vs. 45.25% for 1-4 speakers), and on LibriSpeech the beamformed-4 model is worse than raw 4 (17.64% vs. 16.30%). No raw 8-channel baseline is reported, so the additional gain of beamformed-8 cannot be attributed to beamforming rather than to the extra input channels.
[Section III.C.2] The text states that 'beamformed-8 demonstrates a reduction of 13% relative in WER compared to beamformed-4, reducing the WER from 16.30% to 14.26%'; however, 16.30% is the raw 4-channel baseline, not beamformed-4 (17.64%). The stated comparison is therefore misreported, and the 13% figure is actually relative to the unprocessed baseline rather than to beamformed-4.
[Section III.C.3, Table II] The text reports an improvement 'from 29.08% to 39.94%' for the 3-speaker confusion score, but Table II gives a value of 36.94% for the beamformed (8 mic) condition. The relative improvement calculation should use the table value; the body text must be corrected for the reader to verify the 27% claim.

minor comments (4)

[Table I header] The column header contains a typo: 'LibriSpeeh' should be 'LibriSpeech'.
[Throughout] The paper uses both 'data-independent' and 'data-invariant' (e.g., Fig. 4 and the conclusion) for the same method; choose one term for consistency.
[Section II.C, Figure 5] The response shown in Figure 5 degrades near the elevation boundaries of the sector (10 degrees and 55 degrees); the authors could briefly note the implication for speakers located near the boundary of the chosen angular sectors.
[Section III.C.2, Table I] The matched 4-microphone comparisons in Table I (e.g., 24.52% vs. 25.89% on AMI 1-speaker) are not discussed in terms of statistical significance; the paper only bolds best results without detailing which differences are significant.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: beamformer weights are closed-form from Eq. (5) with no fitted parameters, and the ASR gains are empirical results on held-out data.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The beamformer weights are obtained by solving the least-squares problem in Eq. (1) with the predefined target in Eq. (4), yielding the closed-form solution Eq. (5); no parameter is fit to ASR data, and the sector configuration is disclosed as a geometric design choice (Section II.C). The subsequent 'prediction' is an empirical comparison on held-out AMI/LibriSpeech test sets, not a quantity implied by construction. The only self-citations ([8], [12]) supply training recipes, segmentation, and a prior ASR architecture; the central claim does not reduce to them. The abstract's 11% WER figure compares beamformed-8 to raw-4 and thus confounds beamforming with microphone count, and the text's '39.94%' speaker counting number does not match Table II's 36.94%; these are correctness/comparability concerns, not circularity, because the beamforming operation itself is not defined in terms of the ASR output nor fitted to the test data.

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

The central claim rests on no invented entities. The beamformer has no learned parameters. The free parameters are geometric design choices (sector count, elevation, azimuth boundaries) and a numerical integration step. The key axioms are the far-field assumption, the ideal sector target, the least-squares criterion, and the static circular array setup.

free parameters (4)

Sector count S = 4
Chosen to match the four-speaker meeting configuration in AMI; stated in Section II.C. Not fitted to test data but a design choice for the dataset.
Elevation range = 10 to 60 degrees
Chosen for realistic speaker positions relative to the circular array; Section II.C.
Azimuth sector width = 90 degrees (four sectors)
Divides the full azimuth range into four equal sectors; Section II.C.
Integral discretization step = 1 degree
Replaces integrals in Eq. (5) with sums at 1-degree resolution; Section III.B. Approximation that trades precision for compute.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Sources are in the far field of the microphone array.
Invoked in Section II.A to define the steering vector of Eq. (2); reasonable for distant-microphone meetings but an approximation.
ad hoc to paper The target response for each sector is an ideal indicator function (1 inside the sector, 0 outside).
Eq. (4) in Section II.B defines b_tgt as an ideal sector mask; this is the paper's chosen model and determines the beamformer.
standard math Spatial response error is minimized in a least-squares sense over the full sphere (Eq. 1).
Standard data-independent beamformer formulation taken from [19, Chap. 10.3].
domain assumption Speakers are static and the array geometry is known and circular.
Stated in Section III.A as a simplification; the method is claimed to extend to moving sources but not evaluated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data-independent Beamforming for End-to-end Multichannel Multi-speaker ASR." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TI344FRA

@misc{pith2026250910234,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data-independent Beamforming for End-to-end Multichannel Multi-speaker ASR},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TI344FRA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10234}
}

read the original abstract

Automatic speech recognition (ASR) in multichannel, multi-speaker scenarios remains challenging due to ambient noise, reverberation and overlapping speakers. In this paper, we propose a beamforming approach that processes specific angular sectors based on their spherical polar coordinates before applying an end-to-end multichannel, multi-speaker ASR system. This method is data-independent and training-free. We demonstrate that using a group of beamformed signals improves ASR performance compared to using the same number of raw microphone signals. Moreover, increasing the number of signals used for beamforming further enhances recognition accuracy, leading to a more efficient use of multichannel signals while reducing the overall input load for the ASR system. We conduct experiments on the AMI meeting corpus, where the proposed method reduces word error rate by up to 11% and improves speaker counting accuracy by up to 27% relative compared to a multichannel ASR baseline system that does not exploit beamforming.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10234 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Bird’s-eye view of the acoustic scene for original microphone channels (left), and beamformed channels corresponding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Angular sector corresponding to θ ∈ [45◦ , 135◦ ] and ϕ ∈ [10◦ , 60◦ ]. is the steering vector with mi the Cartesian coordinates of microphone i, λ is the center wavelength of the narrowband signal, and: k =    cos θ cos ϕ sin θ cos ϕ sin ϕ    (3) is the unit vector from the center of the microphone array to the target source. Since Equation (1) has no general closed-form solution, several solutions have been … view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Overview of the proposed system combining data-invariant beamforming and multichannel MFCCA-based ASR. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Response of the fixed beamformer associated with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Spectrogram of one Real AMI test chunk: original 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[1]

M2Met: The ICASSP 2022 Multi-Channel Multi-Party Meeting Transcription Challenge,

F. Yu, S. Zhang, Y . Fu, L. Xie, S. Zheng, Z. Du, W. Huang, P. Guo, Z. Yanet al., “M2Met: The ICASSP 2022 Multi-Channel Multi-Party Meeting Transcription Challenge,” inProc. of IEEE ICASSP, 2022

work page 2022
[2]

The CHiME-7 DASR Challenge: Distant meeting transcription with multiple devices in diverse scenarios,

S. Cornell, M. S. Wiesner, S. Watanabe, D. Raj, X. Chang, P. Garcia, Y . Masuyam, Z.-Q. Wang, S. Squartini, and S. Khudanpur, “The CHiME-7 DASR Challenge: Distant meeting transcription with multiple devices in diverse scenarios,” inProc. of CHiME, 2023

work page 2023
[3]

The CHiME-8 DASR Challenge for generalizable and array agnostic distant automatic speech recognition and diarization,

S. Cornell, T. J. Park, H. Huang, C. Boeddeker, X. Chang, M. Maciejew- ski, M. S. Wiesner, P. Garcia, and S. Watanabe, “The CHiME-8 DASR Challenge for generalizable and array agnostic distant automatic speech recognition and diarization,” inProc. of CHiME, 2024

work page 2024
[4]

Multi-channel transformer transducer for speech recognition,

F.-J. Chang, M. Radfar, A. Mouchtaris, and M. Omologo, “Multi-channel transformer transducer for speech recognition,” inProc. of Interspeech, 2021

work page 2021
[5]

The PCG-AIID system for L3DAS22 challenge: MIMO and MISO convolutional recurrent network for multi channel speech enhancement and speech recognition,

J. Li, Y . Zhu, D. Luo, Y . Liu, G. Cui, and Z. Li, “The PCG-AIID system for L3DAS22 challenge: MIMO and MISO convolutional recurrent network for multi channel speech enhancement and speech recognition,” inProc. of IEEE ICASSP, 2022

work page 2022
[6]

MFCCA: Multi-frame cross-channel attention for multi-speaker ASR in multi- party meeting scenario,

F. Yu, S. Zhang, P. Guo, Y . Liang, Z. Du, Y . Lin, and L. Xie, “MFCCA: Multi-frame cross-channel attention for multi-speaker ASR in multi- party meeting scenario,” inProc. of IEEE SLT, 2023

work page 2023
[7]

A comparative study on multichannel speaker-attributed automatic speech recognition in multi-party meetings,

M. Shi, J. Zhang, Z. Du, F. Yu, Q. Chen, S. Zhang, and L.-R. Dai, “A comparative study on multichannel speaker-attributed automatic speech recognition in multi-party meetings,” inProc. of APSIPA ASC, 2023

work page 2023
[8]

End-to-end multichannel speaker-attributed ASR: Speaker guided decoder and input feature analysis,

C. Cui, I. Sheikh, M. Sadeghi, and E. Vincent, “End-to-end multichannel speaker-attributed ASR: Speaker guided decoder and input feature analysis,” inProc. of IEEE ASRU, 2023

work page 2023

Show all 28 references

[9]

Attention is all you need,

A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 30, 2017

2017
[10]

All-neural beamformer for continuous speech separation,

Z. Zhang, T. Yoshioka, N. Kanda, Z. Chen, X. Wang, D. Wang, and S. E. Eskimez, “All-neural beamformer for continuous speech separation,” in Proc. of IEEE ICASSP, 2022

2022
[11]

End- to-end integration of speech recognition, dereverberation, beamforming, and self-supervised learning representation,

Y . Masuyama, X. Chang, S. Cornell, S. Watanabe, and N. Ono, “End- to-end integration of speech recognition, dereverberation, beamforming, and self-supervised learning representation,” inProc. of IEEE SLT, 2023

2023
[12]

Joint beamforming and speaker-attributed ASR for real distant-microphone meeting tran- scription,

C. Cui, I. A. Sheikh, M. Sadeghi, and E. Vincent, “Joint beamforming and speaker-attributed ASR for real distant-microphone meeting tran- scription,” inProc. of EUSIPCO, 2025

2025
[13]

Integration of speech separation, diarization, and recognition for multi-speaker meetings: System descrip- tion, comparison, and analysis,

D. Raj, P. Denisov, Z. Chen, H. Erdogan, Z. Huang, M. He, S. Watanabe, J. Du, T. Yoshioka, Y . Luoet al., “Integration of speech separation, diarization, and recognition for multi-speaker meetings: System descrip- tion, comparison, and analysis,” inProc. of IEEE SLT, 2021

2021
[14]

Train from scratch: Single- stage joint training of speech separation and recognition,

J. Shi, X. Chang, S. Watanabe, and B. Xu, “Train from scratch: Single- stage joint training of speech separation and recognition,”Computer Speech & Language, vol. 76, p. 101387, 2022

2022
[15]

Varar- ray meets T-Sot: Advancing the state of the art of streaming distant conversational speech recognition,

N. Kanda, J. Wu, X. Wang, Z. Chen, J. Li, and T. Yoshioka, “Varar- ray meets T-Sot: Advancing the state of the art of streaming distant conversational speech recognition,” inProc. of IEEE ICASSP, 2023

2023
[16]

Automatic channel selection and spatial feature integration for multi-channel speech recognition across various array topologies,

B. Mu, P. Guo, D. Guo, P. Zhou, W. Chen, and L. Xie, “Automatic channel selection and spatial feature integration for multi-channel speech recognition across various array topologies,” inProc. of IEEE ICASSP, 2024

2024
[17]

Serialized output training for end-to-end overlapped speech recognition,

N. Kanda, Y . Gaur, X. Wang, Z. Meng, and T. Yoshioka, “Serialized output training for end-to-end overlapped speech recognition,” inProc. of Interspeech, 2020

2020
[18]

The AMI meeting corpus: A pre-announcement,

J. Carletta, S. Ashby, S. Bourban, M. Flynn, M. Guillemot, T. Hain, J. Kadlec, V . Karaiskos, W. Kraaij, M. Kronenthalet al., “The AMI meeting corpus: A pre-announcement,” inProc. of MLMI, 2005

2005
[19]

Vincent, T

E. Vincent, T. Virtanen, and S. Gannot,Audio Source Separation and Speech Enhancement. John Wiley & Sons, 2018

2018
[20]

D. H. Johnson and D. E. Dudgeon,Array Signal Processing: Concepts and Techniques. Prentice Hall., 1993

1993
[21]

Simulating realistic speech overlaps improves multi- talker ASR,

M. Yang, N. Kanda, X. Wang, J. Wu, S. Sivasankaran, Z. Chen, J. Li, and T. Yoshioka, “Simulating realistic speech overlaps improves multi- talker ASR,” inProc. of IEEE ICASSP, 2023

2023
[22]

Librispeech: An ASR corpus based on public domain audio books,

V . Panayotov, G. Chen, D. Povey, and S. Khudanpur, “Librispeech: An ASR corpus based on public domain audio books,” inProc. of IEEE ICASSP, 2015

2015
[23]

Joint speaker counting, speech recognition, and speaker identification for overlapped speech of any number of speakers,

N. Kanda, Y . Gaur, X. Wang, Z. Meng, Z. Chen, T. Zhou, and T. Yoshioka, “Joint speaker counting, speech recognition, and speaker identification for overlapped speech of any number of speakers,” inProc. of Interspeech, 2020

2020
[24]

Sentencepiece: A simple and language inde- pendent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for neural text processing,

T. Kudo and J. Richardson, “Sentencepiece: A simple and language inde- pendent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for neural text processing,” inProc. of EMNLP, 2018

2018
[25]

Towards low-distortion multi-channel speech enhance- ment: The ESPNet-SE submission to the L3DAS22 challenge,

Y .-J. Lu, S. Cornell, X. Chang, W. Zhang, C. Li, Z. Ni, Z.-Q. Wang, and S. Watanabe, “Towards low-distortion multi-channel speech enhance- ment: The ESPNet-SE submission to the L3DAS22 challenge,” inProc. of IEEE ICASSP, 2022

2022
[26]

DNN-based Parameter Estimation for MVDR Beamforming and Post-filtering,

M. Kim, S. Cheong, and J. W. Shin, “DNN-based Parameter Estimation for MVDR Beamforming and Post-filtering,” inProc. of Interspeech, 2023

2023
[27]

Torchaudio: Building blocks for audio and speech processing,

Y .-Y . Yang, M. Hira, Z. Ni, A. Chourdia, A. Astafurov, C. Chen, C.- F. Yeh, C. Puhrsch, D. Pollack, D. Genzel, D. Greenberg, E. Z. Yang, J. Lian, J. Mahadeokar, J. Hwang, J. Chen, P. Goldsborough, P. Roy, S. Narenthiran, S. Watanabe, S. Chintala, V . Quenneville-B ´elair, an...

arXiv
[28]

SpeechBrain: A general-purpose speech toolkit,

M. Ravanelli, T. Parcollet, P. Plantinga, A. Rouhe, S. Cornell, L. Lu- gosch, C. Subakan, N. Dawalatabad, A. Hebaet al., “SpeechBrain: A general-purpose speech toolkit,” 2021, arXiv:2106.04624

2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

M2Met: The ICASSP 2022 Multi-Channel Multi-Party Meeting Transcription Challenge,

F. Yu, S. Zhang, Y . Fu, L. Xie, S. Zheng, Z. Du, W. Huang, P. Guo, Z. Yanet al., “M2Met: The ICASSP 2022 Multi-Channel Multi-Party Meeting Transcription Challenge,” inProc. of IEEE ICASSP, 2022

work page 2022

[2] [2]

The CHiME-7 DASR Challenge: Distant meeting transcription with multiple devices in diverse scenarios,

S. Cornell, M. S. Wiesner, S. Watanabe, D. Raj, X. Chang, P. Garcia, Y . Masuyam, Z.-Q. Wang, S. Squartini, and S. Khudanpur, “The CHiME-7 DASR Challenge: Distant meeting transcription with multiple devices in diverse scenarios,” inProc. of CHiME, 2023

work page 2023

[3] [3]

The CHiME-8 DASR Challenge for generalizable and array agnostic distant automatic speech recognition and diarization,

S. Cornell, T. J. Park, H. Huang, C. Boeddeker, X. Chang, M. Maciejew- ski, M. S. Wiesner, P. Garcia, and S. Watanabe, “The CHiME-8 DASR Challenge for generalizable and array agnostic distant automatic speech recognition and diarization,” inProc. of CHiME, 2024

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Multi-channel transformer transducer for speech recognition,

F.-J. Chang, M. Radfar, A. Mouchtaris, and M. Omologo, “Multi-channel transformer transducer for speech recognition,” inProc. of Interspeech, 2021

work page 2021

[5] [5]

The PCG-AIID system for L3DAS22 challenge: MIMO and MISO convolutional recurrent network for multi channel speech enhancement and speech recognition,

J. Li, Y . Zhu, D. Luo, Y . Liu, G. Cui, and Z. Li, “The PCG-AIID system for L3DAS22 challenge: MIMO and MISO convolutional recurrent network for multi channel speech enhancement and speech recognition,” inProc. of IEEE ICASSP, 2022

work page 2022

[6] [6]

MFCCA: Multi-frame cross-channel attention for multi-speaker ASR in multi- party meeting scenario,

F. Yu, S. Zhang, P. Guo, Y . Liang, Z. Du, Y . Lin, and L. Xie, “MFCCA: Multi-frame cross-channel attention for multi-speaker ASR in multi- party meeting scenario,” inProc. of IEEE SLT, 2023

work page 2023

[7] [7]

A comparative study on multichannel speaker-attributed automatic speech recognition in multi-party meetings,

M. Shi, J. Zhang, Z. Du, F. Yu, Q. Chen, S. Zhang, and L.-R. Dai, “A comparative study on multichannel speaker-attributed automatic speech recognition in multi-party meetings,” inProc. of APSIPA ASC, 2023

work page 2023

[8] [8]

End-to-end multichannel speaker-attributed ASR: Speaker guided decoder and input feature analysis,

C. Cui, I. Sheikh, M. Sadeghi, and E. Vincent, “End-to-end multichannel speaker-attributed ASR: Speaker guided decoder and input feature analysis,” inProc. of IEEE ASRU, 2023

work page 2023