pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23593 · v1 · pith:RLXFKZ35new · submitted 2026-05-22 · 📡 eess.AS

A study on weakly-supervised training approaches for phoneme-level pronunciation scoring

Jazm\'in Vidal , Luciana Ferrer This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 02:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.AS
keywords weakly-supervised learningpronunciation scoringphoneme-level supervisionmispronunciation detectioncomputer-assisted pronunciation trainingutterance-level labels
0
0 comments X

The pith

A two-stage training process using mostly utterance-level labels achieves phoneme-level pronunciation scoring comparable to full supervision with only a small fraction of detailed labels.

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

The paper investigates whether phoneme-level mispronunciation information can be learned from higher-level utterance- or word-level pronunciation labels rather than scarce and costly phoneme-level annotations. It tests a weakly supervised approach and introduces a two-stage scenario that first trains on utterance-level labels then finetunes on a limited set of carefully selected phoneme-labeled utterances. Results show that this two-stage process produces phoneme-level score predictions close to those from complete phoneme supervision. The work matters because reducing the need for fine-grained labels could make phoneme-level computer-assisted pronunciation training systems more practical to deploy.

Core claim

Models trained only with utterance- or word-level pronunciation labels produce useful phoneme-level score predictions. A two-stage training process that begins with utterance-level supervision and then finetunes on a limited number of selected phoneme-level labeled utterances yields results comparable to training with full phoneme-level supervision.

What carries the argument

The two-stage training process that starts with utterance-level supervision and finetunes on a limited set of phoneme-level labeled utterances chosen by a specific selection process.

If this is right

  • Phoneme-level pronunciation scoring systems can be developed with substantially lower phoneme-level annotation costs.
  • Utterance-level labels alone induce some useful phoneme-level predictive ability in the trained model.
  • The choice of which utterances receive phoneme-level labels during the finetuning stage is critical to reaching high performance.
  • Comparable scoring accuracy to full supervision is attainable using only a small fraction of phoneme-level labels.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The approach could extend to other speech processing tasks that require fine-grained labels but have abundant coarser supervision available.
  • Automating or improving the utterance selection process might further minimize or eliminate the need for any phoneme-level labels.
  • Evaluating the method across different languages or speaker populations would test whether the weak supervision benefit holds beyond the current data.

Load-bearing premise

The proposed architecture together with the utterance selection process enables higher-level supervision to produce accurate phoneme-level score predictions.

What would settle it

A replication experiment using the same architecture but showing that the two-stage model does not reach the accuracy of a fully supervised baseline on held-out data would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23593 by Jazm\'in Vidal, Luciana Ferrer.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: shows the original GOPT architecture (inside the dashed block) and, above it, the proposed modification. In all cases, we vary the supervision regime by controlling which loss terms are active during training: only utterance-level labels, only word-level labels, only phoneme-level labels, or the sum of losses from all levels, corresponding to the original multi-task GOPT formulation. Note that, when the BA… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Phoneme-level PCC for the proposed two-stage train￾ing process using a varying number of samples (x-axis) la￾beled at word-level (left) or phoneme-level (right) for the sec￾ond stage. Curves differ on training strategy (FT: finetuning the 1S-U model, TR: training from scratch), and sample selection strategy (rand/best, balanced or not). Horizontal lines show the one-stage baselines with different supervisi… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Phoneme-level computer-assisted pronunciation training systems typically rely on phoneme-level annotations, which are costly and scarce. In this work, we investigate whether phoneme-level mispronunciation information can be learned without phoneme-level supervision by exploiting higher-level pronunciation labels. Specifically, we study a weakly supervised setting in which models are trained using only utterance- or word-level pronunciation labels and analyze whether this supervision induces useful phoneme-level score predictions. We further consider a two-stage training scenario in which a model trained only with utterance-level labels is finetuned using a limited number of carefully-selected phoneme-level labeled utterances. We find that, using our proposed architecture and selection process, the two-stage process leads to comparable results to those obtained with full phoneme-level supervision, requiring only a small fraction of phoneme-level labels.

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

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates weakly-supervised training for phoneme-level pronunciation scoring in computer-assisted pronunciation training systems. It examines whether utterance- or word-level pronunciation labels can induce useful phoneme-level score predictions, and evaluates a two-stage approach consisting of utterance-level pretraining followed by finetuning on a small, carefully selected set of phoneme-labeled utterances. The central claim is that, with the authors' proposed architecture and utterance selection process, this two-stage method yields phoneme-level scoring performance comparable to full phoneme-level supervision while requiring only a small fraction of phoneme-level labels.

Significance. If the empirical results are substantiated with clear quantitative evidence, the work would be significant for reducing the high cost of phoneme-level annotations in pronunciation scoring systems. Demonstrating that higher-level supervision can effectively induce accurate phoneme-level predictions could improve the scalability of such systems. The paper contributes an empirical comparison of training regimes rather than a theoretical derivation.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that the two-stage process 'leads to comparable results to those obtained with full phoneme-level supervision' is presented without any quantitative metrics, baseline comparisons, statistical details, or description of how comparability was measured (e.g., which scoring metric, confidence intervals, or significance tests). This absence makes it impossible to verify support for the central claim from the provided text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their review and the comment on the abstract. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that the two-stage process 'leads to comparable results to those obtained with full phoneme-level supervision' is presented without any quantitative metrics, baseline comparisons, statistical details, or description of how comparability was measured (e.g., which scoring metric, confidence intervals, or significance tests). This absence makes it impossible to verify support for the central claim from the provided text.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract, standing alone, would benefit from including quantitative support for the central claim. The full manuscript reports the relevant details in the experimental sections, including the specific scoring metric (Pearson correlation with human annotations), baseline comparisons against fully supervised models, and the observed performance levels. To make the claim verifiable directly from the abstract, we will revise it to briefly summarize the key quantitative findings, the metric used, and the fraction of phoneme-level labels required. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: purely empirical study with no derivation chain

full rationale

The paper is an empirical comparison of training regimes for pronunciation scoring. It reports experimental results from utterance-level pretraining followed by limited finetuning, with no equations, derivations, or mathematical claims that could reduce to fitted inputs by construction. No self-citation is used to justify a uniqueness theorem or ansatz. The central claim (comparable performance with partial labels) rests on reported metrics from the authors' architecture and selection process, which are externally falsifiable via replication on the same data splits. This matches the default expectation of no circularity for non-derivational work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review is based on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are described. Standard machine learning assumptions about data and model transfer are implicitly required.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Machine learning models trained on coarse utterance-level labels can transfer useful information to phoneme-level predictions when using an appropriate architecture and selection process.
    This premise is required for the weakly supervised and two-stage approaches to succeed as claimed.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5666 in / 1188 out tokens · 32491 ms · 2026-05-25T02:37:19.796115+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

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    These aspects can be evaluated at different granularities (phoneme, word, or sentence) and mod- eled separately or jointly [1, 2]

    Introduction Computer-assisted pronunciation training (CAPT) systems aim to detect and provide feedback on multiple aspects of L2 speech, including segmental and suprasegmental accuracy, flu- ency, and overall proficiency. These aspects can be evaluated at different granularities (phoneme, word, or sentence) and mod- eled separately or jointly [1, 2]. CAP...

    work page

  2. [2]

    A study on weakly-supervised training approaches for phoneme-level pronunciation scoring

    Methods As training and evaluation data we use the Speechocean762 database [26], which provides pronunciation scores annotated at phoneme, word, and utterance level. These multi-granularity annotations allow us to study weak supervision scenarios in which phoneme-level predictors are learned from higher-level labels. 2.1. Baselines: GOP, GOP features + SV...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    Each utterance is anno- tated by five raters at phoneme, word, and utterance level

    Experimental setup We conduct experiments on the Speechocean762 corpus, which contains 5000 English read utterances from 250 Mandarin L1 speakers (125 adults and 125 children). Each utterance is anno- tated by five raters at phoneme, word, and utterance level. The scores for each unit are averaged across raters, and utterance- and word-level accuracy scor...

    work page

  4. [4]

    In each regime, we report performance of all available scores

    Results We train the three architectures depicted in Figure 1 (BASE, MEAN and ATTN) under five supervision regimes: utter- ance+word+phoneme (UWP), phoneme-only (P), word-only (W), utterance+word (UW), and utterance-only (U). In each regime, we report performance of all available scores. At the phoneme level, the scores may be obtained with pre- diction h...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Discussion and conclusions In this work, we explore whether phoneme-level pronunciation information can be recovered using only higher-level supervi- sion. We propose a variant of the GOPT architecture that al- lows for higher-level supervision to flow through to phoneme- level prediction heads by computing higher-level predictions as attention-pooled pho...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Automatic error detection in pronunciation training: Where we are and where we need to go,

    S. M. Witt, “Automatic error detection in pronunciation training: Where we are and where we need to go,” inInternational Sympo- sium on automatic detection on errors in pronunciation training, vol. 1, 2012

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Automatic pronun- ciation assessment-a review,

    Y . El Kheir, A. Ali, and S. A. Chowdhury, “Automatic pronun- ciation assessment-a review,” inFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    The effective- ness of computer assisted pronunciation training for foreign lan- guage learning by children,

    A. Neri, O. Mich, M. Gerosa, and D. Giuliani, “The effective- ness of computer assisted pronunciation training for foreign lan- guage learning by children,”Computer Assisted Language Learn- ing, vol. 21, no. 5, 2008

    work page 2008

  9. [9]

    Comparing different approaches for automatic pronunciation error detection,

    H. Strik, K. Truong, F. De Wet, and C. Cucchiarini, “Comparing different approaches for automatic pronunciation error detection,” Speech communication, vol. 51, no. 10, 2009

    work page 2009

  10. [10]

    Cnn-rnn-ctc based end-to- end mispronunciation detection and diagnosis,

    W.-K. Leung, X. Liu, and H. Meng, “Cnn-rnn-ctc based end-to- end mispronunciation detection and diagnosis,” inICASSP 2019- 2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2019

    work page 2019

  11. [12]

    Deep feature transfer learning for automatic pronunciation assessment

    B. Lin and L. Wang, “Deep feature transfer learning for automatic pronunciation assessment.” inInterspeech, 2021

    work page 2021

  12. [13]

    A transfer learning approach for pronunciation scoring,

    M. Sancinetti, J. Vidal, C. Bonomi, and L. Ferrer, “A transfer learning approach for pronunciation scoring,” inICASSP 2022- 2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2022

    work page 2022

  13. [14]

    Explore wav2vec 2.0 for mispronunciation detection

    X. Xu, Y . Kang, S. Cao, B. Lin, and L. Ma, “Explore wav2vec 2.0 for mispronunciation detection.” inProc. Interspeech, 2021

    work page 2021

  14. [15]

    Mispronunciation detection using self-supervised speech representations,

    J. Vidal, P. Riera, and L. Ferrer, “Mispronunciation detection using self-supervised speech representations,” inProc. SLaTE, 2023

    work page 2023

  15. [16]

    A study on fine- tuning wav2vec2.0 model for the task of mispronunciation detec- tion and diagnosis

    L. Peng, K. Fu, B. Lin, D. Ke, and J. Zhang, “A study on fine- tuning wav2vec2.0 model for the task of mispronunciation detec- tion and diagnosis.” inProc. Interspeech, 2021

    work page 2021

  16. [17]

    Improving Mispronunciation Detection with Wav2vec2-based Momentum Pseudo-Labeling for Accentedness and Intelligibility Assessment,

    M. Yang, K. Hirschi, S. D. Looney, O. Kang, and J. H. Hansen, “Improving Mispronunciation Detection with Wav2vec2-based Momentum Pseudo-Labeling for Accentedness and Intelligibility Assessment,” inInterspeech 2022, 2022, pp. 4481–4485

    work page 2022

  17. [18]

    A full text- dependent end to end mispronunciation detection and diagnosis with easy data augmentation techniques,

    K. Fu, J. Lin, D. Ke, Y . Xie, J. Zhang, and B. Lin, “A full text- dependent end to end mispronunciation detection and diagnosis with easy data augmentation techniques,”CoRR, 2021

    work page 2021

  18. [19]

    Computer-assisted pronunciation training—speech synthesis is almost all you need,

    D. Korzekwa, J. Lorenzo-Trueba, T. Drugman, and B. Kostek, “Computer-assisted pronunciation training—speech synthesis is almost all you need,”Speech Communication, vol. 142, 2022

    work page 2022

  19. [20]

    Phone-level pronunciation scoring and assessment for interactive language learning,

    S. M. Witt and S. J. Young, “Phone-level pronunciation scoring and assessment for interactive language learning,”Speech com- munication, vol. 30, no. 2-3, 2000

    work page 2000

  20. [21]

    Improved mispro- nunciation detection with deep neural network trained acoustic models and transfer learning based logistic regression classifiers,

    W. Hu, Y . Qian, F. K. Soong, and Y . Wang, “Improved mispro- nunciation detection with deep neural network trained acoustic models and transfer learning based logistic regression classifiers,” Speech Communication, vol. 67, 2015

    work page 2015

  21. [22]

    A framework for phoneme-level pronunciation assessment using ctc,

    X. Cao, Z. Fan, T. Svendsen, and G. Salvi, “A framework for phoneme-level pronunciation assessment using ctc,” inProc. In- terspeech, 2024

    work page 2024

  22. [23]

    Leveraging allophony in self-supervised speech models for atyp- ical pronunciation assessment,

    K. Choi, E. Yeo, K. Chang, S. Watanabe, and D. R. Mortensen, “Leveraging allophony in self-supervised speech models for atyp- ical pronunciation assessment,” inProceedings of the 2025 Con- ference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers), 2025

    work page 2025

  23. [24]

    Phone-level pro- nunciation scoring for l1 using weighted-dynamic time warping,

    A. Sini, A. Perquin, D. Lolive, and A. Delhay, “Phone-level pro- nunciation scoring for l1 using weighted-dynamic time warping,” in2022 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT), 2023

    work page 2023

  24. [25]

    Mispronunciation detection without non- native training data

    A. Lee and J. R. Glass, “Mispronunciation detection without non- native training data.” inProc. Interspeech, 2015

    work page 2015

  25. [26]

    Personalized mispronuncia- tion detection and diagnosis based on unsupervised error pattern discovery,

    A. Lee, N. F. Chen, and J. Glass, “Personalized mispronuncia- tion detection and diagnosis based on unsupervised error pattern discovery,” in2016 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2016

    work page 2016

  26. [27]

    Computer-assisted pronunciation training: From pronunciation scoring towards spoken language learning,

    N. F. Chen and H. Li, “Computer-assisted pronunciation training: From pronunciation scoring towards spoken language learning,” in2016 Asia-Pacific Signal and Information Processing Associa- tion Annual Summit and Conference (APSIPA), 2016

    work page 2016

  27. [28]

    Automatic pronunciation scoring of words and sentences inde- pendent from the non-native’s first language,

    T. Cincarek, R. Gruhn, C. Hacker, E. N ¨oth, and S. Nakamura, “Automatic pronunciation scoring of words and sentences inde- pendent from the non-native’s first language,”Computer Speech & Language, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 65–88, 2009

    work page 2009

  28. [29]

    Transformer-based multi-aspect multi-granularity non-native en- glish speaker pronunciation assessment,

    Y . Gong, Z. Chen, I.-H. Chu, P. Chang, and J. Glass, “Transformer-based multi-aspect multi-granularity non-native en- glish speaker pronunciation assessment,” inICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2022

    work page 2022

  29. [30]

    Hierarchical pronunciation assess- ment with multi-aspect attention,

    H. Do, Y . Kim, and G. G. Lee, “Hierarchical pronunciation assess- ment with multi-aspect attention,” inICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Pro- cessing (ICASSP), 2023

    work page 2023

  30. [31]

    speechocean762: An Open-Source Non- Native English Speech Corpus for Pronunciation Assessment,

    J. Zhang, Z. Zhang, Y . Wang, Z. Yan, Q. Song, Y . Huang, K. Li, D. Povey, and Y . Wang, “speechocean762: An Open-Source Non- Native English Speech Corpus for Pronunciation Assessment,” in Interspeech, 2021

    work page 2021

  31. [32]

    Semi-orthogonal low-rank matrix factoriza- tion for deep neural networks

    D. Povey, G. Cheng, Y . Wang, K. Li, H. Xu, M. Yarmohammadi, and S. Khudanpur, “Semi-orthogonal low-rank matrix factoriza- tion for deep neural networks.” inProc. Interspeech, 2018

    work page 2018

  32. [33]

    Lib- rispeech: an asr corpus based on public domain audio books,

    V . Panayotov, G. Chen, D. Povey, and S. Khudanpur, “Lib- rispeech: an asr corpus based on public domain audio books,” in2015 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP), 2015

    work page 2015

  33. [34]

    Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python,

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V . Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V . Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay, “Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 12, 2011

    work page 2011