pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.19801 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-10 · 📡 eess.AS · cs.AI· cs.CL

Utterance-Level Methods for Identifying Reliable ASR-Output for Child Speech

Gus Lathouwers , Lingyun Gao , Catia Cucchiarini , Helmer Strik This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.AS cs.AIcs.CL
keywords automatic speech recognitionchild speechutterance selectionreliable outputerror reductionlanguage learning
0
0 comments X

The pith

Utterance-level methods can select reliable ASR outputs for child speech with over 97 percent precision, keeping 21 to 56 percent of recordings at low error rates.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper introduces two novel utterance-level methods for selecting reliable automatic speech recognition outputs from child speech recordings. One method targets read speech and the other dialogue material. Evaluations on English and Dutch child speech datasets with baseline and fine-tuned models demonstrate that the best strategies achieve precision greater than 97.4 percent. Consequently, 21.0 to 55.9 percent of the datasets can be automatically selected while maintaining utterance error rates below 2.6 percent.

Core claim

The paper establishes that novel utterance-level selection methods for reliable ASR-output in child speech achieve high precision exceeding 97.4 percent for both read speech and dialogue material across English and Dutch datasets. These methods enable automatic selection of 21.0 percent to 55.9 percent of the datasets with utterance error rates under 2.6 percent.

What carries the argument

Utterance-level selection strategies that identify reliable transcriptions based on ASR output features for child speech.

If this is right

  • Reliable portions of child speech data can be used confidently in language learning applications.
  • The approach applies equally to read and spontaneous dialogue speech.
  • Both English and Dutch child speakers benefit from the same selection criteria.
  • Substantial fractions of datasets become usable without manual error checking.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the strategies prove robust across new conditions, they could be integrated into real-time ASR systems for education.
  • Extending the methods to other languages or age groups might further broaden their utility in speech technology.
  • The precision-coverage trade-off could guide decisions on how much data to retain versus verify manually in practice.

Load-bearing premise

The selection strategies developed on the English and Dutch child speech datasets will generalize to new speakers, recording setups, or different ASR models.

What would settle it

Applying the best strategy to a fresh set of child speech recordings from unseen speakers or with a different ASR model and checking whether the precision stays above 90 percent and the low-error coverage remains comparable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.19801 by Catia Cucchiarini, Gus Lathouwers, Helmer Strik, Lingyun Gao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Audio Processing Pipeline for Different Strategies used. quality ASR-output automatically. To the best of our knowl￾edge, the novelty of this work lies in assessing the reliability of ASR-output using newly developed methods on an utterance level specifically for read and dialogue material, which differ from traditional confidence estimation methods that typically function at the word level [21]. The resea… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) is increasingly used in applications involving child speech, such as language learning and literacy acquisition. However, the effectiveness of such applications is limited by high ASR error rates. The negative effects can be mitigated by identifying in advance which ASR-outputs are reliable. This work aims to develop two novel approaches for selecting reliable ASR-output at the utterance level, one for selecting reliable read speech and one for dialogue speech material. Evaluations were done on an English and a Dutch dataset, each with a baseline and finetuned model. The results show that utterance-level selection methods for identifying reliably transcribed speech recordings have high precision for the best strategy (P > 97.4) for both read speech and dialogue material, for both languages. Using the current optimal strategy allows 21.0% to 55.9% of dialogue/read speech datasets to be automatically selected with low (UER of < 2.6) error rates.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces two novel utterance-level selection methods for identifying reliable ASR outputs from child speech: one optimized for read speech and one for dialogue material. Evaluations on English and Dutch child-speech corpora (using both baseline and fine-tuned ASR models) report that the best strategies achieve precision above 97.4% while automatically selecting 21.0%–55.9% of utterances with utterance error rates below 2.6%.

Significance. If the performance generalizes, the work would offer a practical way to mitigate high ASR error rates in child-speech applications such as language learning and literacy tools by automatically filtering reliable transcriptions. The bilingual evaluation and separate handling of read versus dialogue material strengthen its potential utility.

major comments (2)
  1. [Evaluation section] Evaluation section: the selection strategies (whatever combination of confidence scores, duration, or acoustic features) were developed and threshold-tuned on the same English and Dutch datasets used for final reporting, with no speaker-independent held-out partitions, cross-speaker cross-validation, or testing on a third ASR architecture. Given documented high inter-speaker and recording-condition variance in child speech, this directly undermines the load-bearing claim that the reported operating points (P>97.4, 21–55.9% coverage at UER<2.6) will transfer to new speakers or conditions.
  2. [Results tables] Results tables (implied by the reported precision and coverage figures): no error analysis or breakdown by speaker age, recording quality, or error type is supplied, making it impossible to determine whether the high-precision subset is systematically biased toward easier utterances rather than representing a general reliability filter.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and methods: the precise feature set, combination rule, and threshold-selection procedure for the two novel approaches are not described at a level that would allow reproduction or independent verification of the claimed precision numbers.
  2. Notation: the acronym UER is used without an explicit definition on first appearance, and it is unclear whether it is computed at the word or character level.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on generalizability and the need for deeper analysis. We agree that the current evaluation setup has limitations and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Evaluation section] Evaluation section: the selection strategies (whatever combination of confidence scores, duration, or acoustic features) were developed and threshold-tuned on the same English and Dutch datasets used for final reporting, with no speaker-independent held-out partitions, cross-speaker cross-validation, or testing on a third ASR architecture. Given documented high inter-speaker and recording-condition variance in child speech, this directly undermines the load-bearing claim that the reported operating points (P>97.4, 21–55.9% coverage at UER<2.6) will transfer to new speakers or conditions.

    Authors: We acknowledge that thresholds were optimized on the full datasets without speaker-independent splits, which limits claims of transfer to unseen speakers. In the revised manuscript we will add speaker-level cross-validation: partition each corpus by speaker, tune thresholds on training speakers only, and report precision/coverage on held-out speakers. We will also apply the methods to one additional ASR architecture (where feasible) to test robustness beyond the baseline and fine-tuned models already evaluated. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results tables] Results tables (implied by the reported precision and coverage figures): no error analysis or breakdown by speaker age, recording quality, or error type is supplied, making it impossible to determine whether the high-precision subset is systematically biased toward easier utterances rather than representing a general reliability filter.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of such breakdowns leaves open the possibility of bias toward easier utterances. In the revision we will add an analysis section that stratifies the selected utterances by available speaker age groups and recording-quality metadata, and we will compare error-type distributions (substitutions, deletions, insertions) between the high-precision subset and the full set to assess whether the filter is general or selective for simpler cases. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical evaluation on held-out test partitions

full rationale

The paper reports empirical precision and coverage metrics obtained by applying utterance-level selection strategies (confidence, duration, acoustic features) to English and Dutch child-speech corpora using baseline and fine-tuned ASR models. No equations, derivations, or self-citations are present that reduce the reported P>97.4% or UER<2.6 figures to quantities fitted on the identical data used for the final claim. Threshold tuning occurs on development portions, with results stated on separate test material; this is standard supervised evaluation and does not constitute any of the enumerated circularity patterns. The work is therefore self-contained against its external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no equations, models, or derivations, so no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be identified.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5475 in / 1132 out tokens · 46988 ms · 2026-05-10T16:11:43.572697+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Introduction Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) technology has been de- veloped for and applied to different downstream tasks in speech processing, such as language-learning and learning-to-read soft- ware [1, 2, 3]. ASR may specifically be employed in children speech as an important component in tools that support speech diagnostics, language learning, o...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Utterance-Level Methods for Identifying Reliable ASR-Output for Child Speech

    can increase child speech ASR accuracy, as a whole perfor- mance still lags behind that of models applied to adult speech [14]. In addition to reducing recognition error rates in child speech, an adjoining task concerns identifying the cases in which ASR transcribes speech reliably. For example, high noise in classroom settings detrimentally affects ASR a...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    Methodology In the current study, we select reliable output at the utterance level. Two methods for selecting reliable ASR-output were tested across two types of materials, namely one for read speech which makes use of the original read prompt commonly present in read material, and one for dialogue audio that can be applied when no original read prompt is...

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    For both material types, for both languages, the highest P values are ob- tained for the model agreement conditions, with P values higher than 97.3

    Results Table 1 displays precisons for all three strategies read material (top 4 rows) and dialogue material (bottom 4 rows). For both material types, for both languages, the highest P values are ob- tained for the model agreement conditions, with P values higher than 97.3. For read material only, all model/language combi- nations achieved P>97.1, with th...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Discussion and Conclusion In the current study, for read material, for both Dutch and En- glish, using just the finetuned model to select utterances resulted in high precision (P>97) across respectively 42.1% (Dutch) and 65.9% (English) of the full read material datasets. The higher number of cases selected in the English dataset is likely attributable to...

    work page

  6. [6]

    but also in more general speech software tools [1]. Since traditional confidence estimation techniques may struggle espe- cially in scenarios with high degrees of noise [19], the current methods may complement these, as they show high accuracy even with elevated error rates for baseline models. The current study presented two methods for identifying re- l...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Gen- erative AI tools were only used for editing and polishing the language and checking the grammar of this manuscript to im- prove clarity and readability

    Generative AI Use Disclosure No generative AI was used for generating core content. Gen- erative AI tools were only used for editing and polishing the language and checking the grammar of this manuscript to im- prove clarity and readability. The authors of the current paper are fully responsible for its contents

    work page

  8. [8]

    What automatic speech recognition can and cannot do for con- versational speech transcription,

    S. O. Russell, I. Gessinger, A. Krason, G. Vigliocco, and N. Harte, “What automatic speech recognition can and cannot do for con- versational speech transcription,”Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, vol. 3, no. 3, p. 100163, 2024

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Evaluating automatic speech recognition-based lan- guage learning systems: A case study,

    J. Van Doremalen, L. Boves, J. Colpaert, C. Cucchiarini, and H. Strik, “Evaluating automatic speech recognition-based lan- guage learning systems: A case study,”Computer Assisted Lan- guage Learning, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 833–851, 2016

    work page 2016

  10. [10]

    An asr-based tutor for learning to read: How to op- timize feedback to first graders,

    Y . Bai, C. Tejedor Garc ´ıa, F. C. W. Hubers, C. Cucchiarini, and H. Strik, “An asr-based tutor for learning to read: How to op- timize feedback to first graders,” inProceedings of Speech and Computer. 23rd International Conference (SPECOM 2021). St. Petersburg, Russia: Springer, 2021, pp. 58–69

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Automatic speech recognition (asr) systems for children: A systematic literature review,

    V . Bhardwaj, M. T. Ben Othman, V . Kukreja, Y . Belkhier, M. Ba- jaj, B. S. Goud, and H. Hamam, “Automatic speech recognition (asr) systems for children: A systematic literature review,”Ap- plied Sciences, vol. 12, no. 9, p. 4419, 2022

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Review of research on applications of speech recognition technology to assist language learning,

    R. Shadiev and J. Liu, “Review of research on applications of speech recognition technology to assist language learning,”Re- CALL, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 74–88, 2023

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    Learning to read in first grade through a reading tutor that employs automatic speech recognition,

    Y . Bai, F. Hubers, C. Cucchiarini, R. van Hout, and H. Strik, “Learning to read in first grade through a reading tutor that employs automatic speech recognition,”Technology, Knowledge and Learning, Jun. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-025-09860-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s10758-025-09860-8 2025

  14. [14]

    Exploring the use of pre-trained asr models for automatic assessment of children’s oral reading,

    B. Groenhof, W. Harmsen, and H. Strik, “Exploring the use of pre-trained asr models for automatic assessment of children’s oral reading,”Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal, vol. 14, pp. 343–364, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.clinjournal.org/clinj/article/view/205

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Can asr gen- erate valid measures of child reading fluency?

    W. Harmsen, R. Hout, C. Cucchiarini, and H. Strik, “Can asr gen- erate valid measures of child reading fluency?” inProceedings of Interspeech 2025, 2025, pp. 2395–2399

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Adaptation of whisper models to child speech recognition,

    R. Jain, A. Barcovschi, M. Yiwere, P. Corcoran, and H. Cucu, “Adaptation of whisper models to child speech recognition,”

    work page

  17. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13008

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.13008

    work page arXiv

  18. [18]

    Pitch and noise normalized acoustic feature for children’s asr,

    I. C. Yadav and G. Pradhan, “Pitch and noise normalized acoustic feature for children’s asr,”Digital Signal Processing, vol. 109, p. 102922, 2021

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Challenges remain in building asr for spontaneous preschool children speech in naturalistic educa- tional environments,

    S. Dutta, S. A. Tao, J. C. Reyna, R. E. Hacker, D. W. Irvin, J. F. Buzhardt, and J. H. Hansen, “Challenges remain in building asr for spontaneous preschool children speech in naturalistic educa- tional environments,” inProceedings of Interspeech 2022, 2022, pp. 4322–4326

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Improving the inclusivity of dutch speech recognition by fine-tuning whisper on the jasmin-cgn corpus,

    G. Shekoufandeh, P. Boersma, and A. van den Bosch, “Improving the inclusivity of dutch speech recognition by fine-tuning whisper on the jasmin-cgn corpus,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.17284

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Improving child speech recognition with augmented child-like speech,

    Y . Zhang, Z. Yue, T. Patel, and O. Scharenborg, “Improving child speech recognition with augmented child-like speech,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.10284

    work page arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    End-to-end neural systems for automatic children speech recognition: An empirical study,

    P. Gurunath Shivakumar and S. Narayanan, “End-to-end neural systems for automatic children speech recognition: An empirical study,”Computer Speech & Language, vol. 72, p. 101289, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0885230821000905

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    Evaluating asr robustness to spontaneous speech errors: A study of whisperx using a speech error database,

    J. Alderete, M. K. F. Hui, and A. Mohan, “Evaluating asr robustness to spontaneous speech errors: A study of whisperx using a speech error database,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.13060

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    V ocabulary independent discrimi- native utterance verification for nonkeyword rejection in subword based speech recognition,

    R. A. Sukkar and C. H. Lee, “V ocabulary independent discrimi- native utterance verification for nonkeyword rejection in subword based speech recognition,”IEEE Transactions on Speech and Au- dio Processing, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 420–429, 1996

    work page 1996

  25. [25]

    Confidence estimation for attention-based sequence-to-sequence models for speech recognition,

    Q. Li, D. Qiu, Y . Zhang, B. Li, Y . He, P. C. Woodland, and T. Strohman, “Confidence estimation for attention-based sequence-to-sequence models for speech recognition,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2021, pp. 6388–6392

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    An evaluation of word-level confidence estimation for end-to-end automatic speech recognition,

    D. Oneat ¸˘a, A. Caranica, A. Stan, and H. Cucu, “An evaluation of word-level confidence estimation for end-to-end automatic speech recognition,” in2021 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Work- shop (SLT). IEEE, 2021, pp. 258–265

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    Evaluating asr confi- dence scores for automated error detection in user-assisted correc- tion interfaces,

    K. Kuhn, V . Kersken, and G. Zimmermann, “Evaluating asr confi- dence scores for automated error detection in user-assisted correc- tion interfaces,” inProceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, April 2025, pp. 1–7

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    Uncertainty estimation for connectionist temporal classification based automatic speech recognition,

    L. Rumberg, C. Gebauer, H. Ehlert, M. Wallbaum, U. L¨udtke, and J. Ostermann, “Uncertainty estimation for connectionist temporal classification based automatic speech recognition,” inProceed- ings of Interspeech 2023, 2023, pp. 4583–4587

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Quality estimation for automatic speech recognition,

    M. Negri, M. Turchi, J. G. de Souza, and D. Falavigna, “Quality estimation for automatic speech recognition,” inProceedings of COLING 2014: The 25th International Conference on Computa- tional Linguistics: Technical Papers, 2014, pp. 1813–1823

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    Automatic quality estimation for asr system combina- tion,

    H. Jalalvand, M. Negri, D. Falavigna, M. Matassoni, and M. Turchi, “Automatic quality estimation for asr system combina- tion,”Computer Speech & Language, vol. 47, pp. 214–239, 2018

    work page 2018

  31. [31]

    Word-level asr quality estimation for efficient cor- pus sampling and post-editing through analyzing attentions of a reference-free metric,

    G. Javadi, K. A. Yuksel, Y . Kim, T. C. Ferreira, and M. Al- Badrashiny, “Word-level asr quality estimation for efficient cor- pus sampling and post-editing through analyzing attentions of a reference-free metric,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing Workshops (ICASSPW), Seoul, Korea, 2024, pp. 863–867

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Im- proving child speech recognition and reading mistake detection by using prompts,

    L. Gao, C. Tejedor-Garcia, C. Cucchiarini, and H. Strik, “Im- proving child speech recognition and reading mistake detection by using prompts,” inProceedings of Interspeech 2025, 2025, pp. 2850–2854

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    Contextual asr error handling with llms augmentation for goal-oriented conversational ai,

    Y . Asano, S. Hassan, P. Sharma, A. Sicilia, K. Atwell, D. Litman, and M. Alikhani, “Contextual asr error handling with llms augmentation for goal-oriented conversational ai,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.06129

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Semantic features based n-best rescoring methods for automatic speech recognition,

    C. Liu, P. Zhang, T. Li, and Y . Yan, “Semantic features based n-best rescoring methods for automatic speech recognition,” Applied Sciences, vol. 9, no. 23, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/9/23/5053

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    Recording speech of children, non-natives and elderly people for HLT applications: the JASMIN-CGN corpus

    C. Cucchiarini, J. Driesen, H. Van hamme, and E. Sanders, “Recording speech of children, non-natives and elderly people for HLT applications: the JASMIN-CGN corpus.” inProceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08), N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, J. Odijk, S. Piperidis, and D. Tapias, E...

    work page 2008

  36. [36]

    The ogi kids’ speech cor- pus and recognizers,

    K. Shobaki, J.-P. Hosom, and R. Cole, “The ogi kids’ speech cor- pus and recognizers,” inProc. of ICSLP. Citeseer, 2000, pp. 564–567

    work page 2000

  37. [37]

    The matthews correlation coefficient (mcc) should replace the roc auc as the standard metric for assess- ing binary classification,

    D. Chicco and G. Jurman, “The matthews correlation coefficient (mcc) should replace the roc auc as the standard metric for assess- ing binary classification,”BioData Mining, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 4, 2023

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    Methodological considerations in interview data transcription,

    H. Widodo, “Methodological considerations in interview data transcription,”International Journal of Innovation in English Language Teaching and Research, vol. 3, pp. 101–107, 2014

    work page 2014