REVIEW 3 cited by
What Do Speech Foundation Models Not Learn About Speech?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Understanding how speech foundation models capture non-verbal cues is crucial for improving their interpretability and adaptability across diverse tasks. In our work, we analyze several prominent models such as Whisper, Seamless, Wav2Vec, HuBERT, and Qwen2-Audio focusing on their learned representations in both paralinguistic and non-paralinguistic tasks from the Dynamic-SUPERB benchmark. Our study addresses three key questions: (1) What non-verbal cues (e.g., speaker intent, emotion, environmental context) are captured? (2) How are these cues represented across different layers of the models? and (3) To what extent can these representations be effectively adapted to downstream tasks? To answer these questions, we first evaluate the models in a zero-shot setting, followed by fine-tuning on layer-wise features extracted from these models. Our results provide insights into the models' capacity for generalization, the characteristics of their layer-wise representations, and the degree of transformation required for downstream task adaptation. Our findings suggest that some of these models perform well on various tasks in zero-shot settings, despite not being explicitly trained for those tasks. We also observe that zero-shot performance correlates with better-learned representations. The analysis of layer-wise features demonstrates that some models exhibit a convex relationship between the separability of the learned representations and model depth, with different layers capturing task-specific features.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
The False Resonance: A Critical Examination of Emotion Embedding Similarity for Speech Generation Evaluation
Emotion embedding similarities are unsuitable for zero-shot evaluation of emotional expressiveness in speech generation due to confounding by non-emotional acoustic features.
-
Different Speech Translation Models Encode and Translate Speaker Gender Differently
Traditional encoder-decoder speech translation models encode speaker gender in hidden states, while newer adapter-based models largely do not; lower gender encoding tracks with masculine-default translation bias.
-
From Words to Waves: Analyzing Concept Formation in Speech and Text-Based Foundation Models
Text models encode linguistic taxonomies early and densely; speech models develop them later and less prominently, with multimodal models showing intermediate patterns.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.