Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

How to Connect Speech Foundation Models and Large Language Models? What Matters and What Does Not

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

arxiv 2409.17044 v3 pith:WP7U4XOY submitted 2024-09-25 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords adapterspeechdependsmodelsperformancetaskslanguagelarge
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

The remarkable performance achieved by Large Language Models (LLM) has driven research efforts to leverage them for a wide range of tasks and input modalities. In speech-to-text (S2T) tasks, the emerging solution consists of projecting the output of the encoder of a Speech Foundational Model (SFM) into the LLM embedding space through an adapter module. However, no work has yet investigated how much the downstream-task performance depends on each component (SFM, adapter, LLM) nor whether the best design of the adapter depends on the chosen SFM and LLM. To fill this gap, we evaluate the combination of 5 adapter modules, 2 LLMs (Mistral and Llama), and 2 SFMs (Whisper and SeamlessM4T) on two widespread S2T tasks, namely Automatic Speech Recognition and Speech Translation. Our results demonstrate that the SFM plays a pivotal role in downstream performance, while the adapter choice has moderate impact and depends on the SFM and LLM.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Compress the Cache, Not the Speech Embedding: KV Compression for Efficient Speech LLMs

    eess.AS 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Learned pooling of speech KV caches from an intermediate LLM layer compresses speech to text-level length while matching or exceeding the uncompressed baseline on ASR and entity recognition, with 1.49–2× decoding speedup.

  2. Contrastive Learning for Task-Independent SpeechLLM-Pretraining

    cs.CL 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Contrastive pre-training that aligns speech and text across all model layers beats ASR-based pre-training and, with 10% of task data, matches or exceeds specialized models on translation and question answering.

  3. Prepending or Cross-Attention for Speech-to-Text? An Empirical Comparison

    cs.CL 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Across controlled ASR and speech translation experiments, dense feature prepending does not outperform cross-attention in quality and is slightly slower and more memory hungry.

Pith tools