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
Signed reviews
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Compress the Cache, Not the Speech Embedding: KV Compression for Efficient Speech LLMs
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.
-
Contrastive Learning for Task-Independent SpeechLLM-Pretraining
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.
-
Prepending or Cross-Attention for Speech-to-Text? An Empirical Comparison
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.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.