Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 29 references

A tiny 500-utterance set can switch on latent test-time scaling inside a frozen ASR model, cutting error where standard fine-tuning makes it worse.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 09:34 UTC pith:HUAG2GC7

load-bearing objection Solid transfer of latent test-time scaling to frozen ASR with real stabilizations and hard-data gains; the clean-set “only method that wins” claim sits on a narrow 500-utt sweet spot and tiny absolute deltas. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.05051 v1 pith:HUAG2GC7 submitted 2026-07-06 cs.SD

Listen, Think, Transcribe: Continuous Latent Test-Time Scaling for ASR

Ho Lam Chung , Yiming Chen , Dau-Cheng Lyu , Hsiao-Tsung Hung , Hung-yi Lee This is my paper
classification cs.SD
keywords automatic speech recognitionlatent test-time scalingcontinuous thoughtparameter-efficient finetuningadaptive computationfrozen backbonedynamic halting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

End-to-end speech recognizers map audio to text in one forward pass, so the decoder never gets a second look at hard inputs. LatentASR keeps a strong ASR backbone completely frozen and adds only two small modules: a Latent Adapter that repeatedly refines a few continuous prefix slots with carefully bounded, gated updates, and a Value Head that predicts whether extra steps will help and can stop early. Both modules are trained on a deliberately small, diverse mixture of just 500 utterances. Under that same minimal-data regime, ordinary adaptation methods (full fine-tuning, LoRA, prompt tuning) all increase word error rate, while LatentASR is the only method that lowers it on clean benchmarks and delivers a large 16 percent relative character-error cut on accented, code-switched speech. The same loop also reduces multilingual error uniformly across 30 languages. The practical claim is that a carefully chosen micro-set can activate useful extra compute at test time without ever corrupting the frozen model, turning fixed per-utterance cost into input-dependent effort spent only where it is needed.

Core claim

Under a deliberately minimal 500-utterance activation regime, LatentASR is the only tested method that reduces word error rate on both clean FLEURS and VoxPopuli while full fine-tuning, LoRA, and prompt tuning all increase it; the same continuous latent loop yields a 16 percent relative CER reduction on accented/code-switched speech and uniform multilingual gains, showing that a small diverse set can switch on latent test-time scaling inside a frozen ASR backbone without corrupting it.

What carries the argument

LatentASR: a Latent Adapter that produces bounded, L2-normalized, sigmoid-gated residual updates around a fixed token-embedding anchor at a few latent prefix positions, plus a Value Head that predicts latent-versus-baseline accuracy gain and dynamically halts the refinement loop.

Load-bearing premise

That a carefully curated 500-utterance mixture sits in a narrow sweet spot that is large enough to teach useful latent refinement yet small enough that the frozen backbone never drifts off its pre-trained manifold.

What would settle it

Retrain LatentASR and the same baselines on activation sets of neighboring sizes (especially 400, 600, and 800 utterances drawn from the same mixture) and check whether the mean relative WER advantage of LatentASR disappears or flips positive while the other methods remain worse, as the paper’s own size sweep already hints.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LatentASR, which adds continuous latent test-time scaling to a frozen Qwen3-ASR-0.6B backbone via two small modules (~4M parameters): a Latent Adapter that iteratively refines N latent prefix embeddings through L2-normalized, gated residual updates around a fixed vocabulary anchor, and a Value Head that predicts per-utterance utility and dynamically halts the loop. Training uses a deliberately small, diverse 500-utterance mixture. Under this regime the authors report that full fine-tuning, LoRA, and prompt tuning all increase WER, while LatentASR reduces WER on FLEURS (−2.54% rel.) and VoxPopuli (−0.47% rel.), yields a −16.0% relative CER reduction on accented/code-switched ASCEND, and produces small uniform multilingual reductions across 30 FLEURS languages. Component ablations attribute stability to the three injection constraints; compute-allocation tables show more steps on harder data.

Significance. If the results hold under stronger statistical controls, the work is a useful contribution to parameter-efficient ASR adaptation and latent test-time scaling. Applying continuous latent refinement to a fully frozen speech decoder, with explicit on-manifold stabilizations and a utility-aligned halting head, is a clear technical step beyond LoRA/prompt tuning and beyond NLP-centric latent CoT methods. The ASCEND and SNR=0dB stress results, together with the stabilization ablations (Table 7) and difficulty-aware step allocation (Table 6), are the most persuasive parts: they show input-dependent extra compute where residual errors are large, without rewriting backbone weights. The clean-benchmark absolute gains are small, so the primary practical significance is robustness and adaptive compute rather than a large uniform accuracy lift.

major comments (3)
  1. Table 1 and §4.1–4.2: the headline clean-set claim (LatentASR is the only method that reduces WER under the 500-utt regime) rests on absolute deltas of −0.124 pp (FLEURS) and −0.043 pp (VoxPopuli). The authors themselves flag run-to-run variation between the canonical checkpoint and same-protocol ablation checkpoints (e.g., FLEURS 4.776% vs 4.86% in Table 7). Without multi-seed means and standard errors for Table 1 (and for the adaptation baselines), it is not established that the clean reductions are distinguishable from checkpoint noise. Please report multi-seed statistics for the main comparison and temper relative-% language when absolute pp changes sit inside observed run variation.
  2. Table 10 and §4.5/§5: the “minimal-data activation” narrative is load-bearing for the abstract and conclusion, yet the activation-size sweep shows a narrow non-monotonic optimum only at 500 utterances (mean Δ −0.080 pp), with 400/600/800 flipping to near-zero or positive and secondary dips at 100/700. A single seed-42 draw from an 811-utt mixture is insufficient to support necessity/sufficiency of this scale. Please add (i) multi-seed or multi-draw composition controls at neighboring sizes, and (ii) a clearer statement of the operating regime’s fragility rather than presenting 500 as a stable principle.
  3. §4.2 Baselines and Table 1: prompt tuning collapses to ~85% WER, which is useful as a distribution-shift warning but also raises the question whether the PEFT baselines were given a fair hyperparameter search under the same frozen-backbone, 500-utt constraint (learning rates follow “original recipes”). A short sensitivity check for LoRA rank/LR and prompt length would strengthen the claim that conventional adapters “all regress” rather than that the chosen PEFT settings do.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; purely empirical architecture and evaluation whose test WER/CER gains are measured on held-out benchmarks and are not forced by construction or self-definition.

full rationale

LatentASR is an empirical ML paper: a frozen Qwen3-ASR backbone plus two small modules (Latent Adapter producing bounded gated residual updates around a fixed embedding anchor via Eqs. 1–3, and a Value Head) trained with CE + cycle + value losses (Eqs. 5–6) on a 500-utterance mixture, then evaluated on external test sets (FLEURS, VoxPopuli, ASCEND, 30-language FLEURS). The Value Head target is the self-distilled latent-vs-baseline accuracy gain Δ on the training utterances (Section 3.5, y = α · tanh(γ · Δ)), which is ordinary supervised training of a utility predictor; it does not algebraically force or redefine the reported test-set WER/CER reductions. Ablations retrain and re-measure WER after removing components (Tables 7–10), confirming necessity experimentally rather than by identity. There are no uniqueness theorems, no parameters fitted to data and then renamed as predictions of closely related quantities, no load-bearing self-citations that close a definitional loop, and no renaming of known results. The minimal-data activation claim and the “only method that reduces WER” result are empirical observations from controlled comparisons and a size sweep, not derivations that reduce to their inputs. The paper is therefore free of the listed circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 3 axioms · 3 invented entities

The central claim rests on a handful of free hyper-parameters chosen by sweep, on the domain assumption that continuous latent states can refine ASR without discrete rationales, and on two invented modules whose only evidence is the paper’s own ablations. No external physical constants or formal theorems are invoked; the ledger is therefore short but the free-parameter count is non-trivial because the activation-size optimum is narrow.

free parameters (7)
  • activation-set size = 500 utterances
    Swept from 100 to 800; 500 chosen as the unique minimum of mean ΔWER (Table 10). Neighboring sizes reverse the sign of the gain.
  • latent budget N = 4
    Fixed at 4 after a small sweep (Table 8); larger N yields no further gain.
  • halting threshold θ = 0.0
    Deployed at 0.0 after Pareto sweep (Fig. 2); controls skip rate and final WER.
  • forced-negative sampling p_neg = 0.3
    Set to 0.3 to keep the Value Head calibrated against positive drift.
  • value-loss weight w_val = 3.0
    Set to 3.0; ablation shows it mainly affects skip-rate calibration.
  • cycle-loss weight schedule w_cyc(t) = 0.1 → 0
    Initialized at 0.1 and linearly decayed; β=0.3 inside L_cyc.
  • step-scale initialization and cap = init 0.2, cap 3.0
    Initialized at 0.2, capped at 3.0; learned per-step scalars control update magnitude.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption A frozen multilingual ASR backbone already encodes sufficient acoustic-to-text knowledge; extra continuous latent compute can refine residual errors without updating backbone weights.
    Stated in Sections 1 and 5; underpins the entire frozen-backbone design.
  • ad hoc to paper Bounded L2-normalized deltas, a sigmoid gate, and a fixed vocabulary-embedding anchor are jointly necessary and sufficient to keep continuous injections on the decoder’s pre-training manifold.
    Introduced in Section 3.4; validated only by the paper’s own ablation (Table 7).
  • domain assumption Per-utterance latent-vs-baseline accuracy gain is a valid training target for a Value Head that decides whether extra compute will help.
    Section 3.5; self-distilled target used for both training and dynamic halting.
invented entities (3)
  • Latent Adapter (bounded recurrent residual around fixed e_LT) no independent evidence
    purpose: Produces scale-invariant, gated updates to N latent prefix embeddings without leaving the frozen decoder’s input manifold.
    Core trainable module; no independent evidence outside the paper’s ablations.
  • Value Head (linear utility predictor over latent states) no independent evidence
    purpose: Predicts whether further latent steps will reduce error and implements two-stage early exit.
    Second trainable module; calibrated only on the paper’s own self-distilled targets.
  • latent prefix positions (non-text continuous slots between system prompt and transcript) no independent evidence
    purpose: Provide a fixed-length recurrent compute workspace that never emits transcript tokens.
    Architectural invention required by the method; no external validation.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 21050 in / 3443 out tokens · 32935 ms · 2026-07-11T09:34:24.795807+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

End-to-end ASR models transcribe in a single pass, leaving no room for the decoder to revisit hard inputs. We propose LatentASR, a parameter-efficient method that adds continuous latent test-time scaling to a frozen ASR backbone. Two small trainable modules drive it: a Latent Adapter that iteratively refines a few latent prefix positions through bounded, stabilized updates, and a Value Head that predicts whether extra computation will help and halts the loop early. The Qwen3-ASR-0.6B backbone stays fully frozen, and we train only ~4M extra parameters. We activate this loop with a deliberately small, diverse 500-utterance training set. Under this minimal-data regime, standard adaptation methods all regress: full fine-tuning, LoRA, and prompt tuning each increase WER. LatentASR is the only tested method that reduces WER on both clean benchmarks (FLEURS -2.54% and VoxPopuli -0.47% relative). The reductions are concentrated on intrinsically hard inputs. On accented and code-switched speech (ASCEND), LatentASR achieves a 16.0% relative CER reduction. Across 30 FLEURS languages (23,049 utterances), the multilingual WER decreases uniformly across resource tiers, confirming that the adapter generalizes without overfitting. Dynamic halting preserves most of the clean-set reduction at a fraction of the compute, skipping roughly half of all utterances at the entry gate. Our results show that a small, carefully chosen activation set can switch on test-time scaling inside a frozen ASR model without corrupting the model itself, converting fixed per-utterance compute into input-dependent compute where it is most needed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05051 by Dau-Cheng Lyu, Ho Lam Chung, Hsiao-Tsung Hung, Hung-yi Lee, Yiming Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Architecture of LatentASR. The ASR backbone (blue) remains frozen. We add a trainable Latent Adapter (orange) that forms a recurrent compute loop. At step k, it maps the decoder hidden state at latent position k to a bounded update δk that is added to the latent embedding via a sigmoid gate. A Value Head (diamond) reads each latent state to predict a utility score vk, enabling the model to halt dynamically… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: ∆WER–compute Pareto curves from sweeping θ (↓ better). FLEURS rewards more latent steps; VoxPopuli reaches its minimum at low compute. The deployed θ=0 (hollow circles) sits near the knee of both frontiers. The point at (0, 0) is the sat￾urated regime (θ≥0.2), where all utterances skip. These curves use the same-protocol sweep checkpoint, so the absolute ∆WER differs from the canonical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fi… view at source ↗

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

29 extracted references · 8 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    This design is simple and effective

    Introduction End-to-end automatic speech recognition (ASR) models map audio directly to text in a single forward pass [1,2]. This design is simple and effective. However, it forces a single left-to-right decoder to handle acoustic disambiguation, language modeling, and error correction at the same time. Recent work has shown that allocating extra computat...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Coconut [4] feeds last-layer hidden states back into the model in place of discrete tokens, allowing rea- soning to proceed in a continuous embedding space

    Related Work Latent test-time scaling.Beyond explicit chain-of-thought reasoning [3], recent work injectscontinuouscomputation into language models. Coconut [4] feeds last-layer hidden states back into the model in place of discrete tokens, allowing rea- soning to proceed in a continuous embedding space. Quiet- STaR [5] trains models to generate and explo...

  3. [3]

    would extra la- tent compute help this utterance?

    Method 3.1. Problem Setup We consider an end-to-end ASR pipeline with a frozen acous- tic encoder and a frozen autoregressive text decoder. Given an utterancea, the encoder produces acoustic statesZ= Enc(a), and the decoder generates transcript tokens conditioned onZ and a text prefix. LatentASR keeps both the encoder and the decoder fully frozen and inte...

  4. [4]

    train on more data

    Experiments 4.1. Experiment Setup Training Setup.We use Qwen3-ASR-0.6B [14] as the base model and keep all its parameters frozen. We train for 10 epochs with effective batch size16on a single NVIDIA RTX 5090. We setN=4and use AdamW with decoupled learning rates: 10−4 for the Latent Adapter and Value Head, and5×10 −5 for step scales (initialized at0.2, cap...

    arXiv 1909

  5. [5]

    This asymmetry is by design

    Discussion Where the gain comes from.The aggregate WER reductions in Table 1 (−0.124pp on FLEURS,−0.043pp on V oxPop- uli) are small on the clean benchmarks but substantially larger on acoustically challenging conditions:−9.26pp CER on AS- CEND (Table 4) and−0.58pp aggregate WER on the six- corpus SNR= 0dB stress suite (Table 5). This asymmetry is by desi...

  6. [6]

    Conclusion We presented LatentASR, a parameter-efficient method that adds continuous latent test-time scaling to a frozen ASR back- bone. A Latent Adapter refines a few latent prefix positions through bounded recurrent updates, and a Value Head halts the loop per utterance, adding under0.7%trainable parameters while leaving the backbone untouched. Under a...

  7. [7]

    Robust speech recognition via Large-Scale weak supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, T. Xu, G. Brockman, C. McLeavey, and I. Sutskever, “Robust speech recognition via Large-Scale weak supervision,” inProceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 202. PMLR, 2023, pp. 28 492–28 518. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v202/radfo...

    2023

  8. [8]

    OWSM v4: Improving open whisper-style speech models via data scaling and cleaning,

    Y . Peng, S. Muhammad, Y . Sudo, W. Chen, J. Tian, C.-J. Lin, and S. Watanabe, “OWSM v4: Improving open whisper-style speech models via data scaling and cleaning,” in26th Annual Confer- ence of the International Speech Communication Association, In- terspeech 2025, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 17-21 August 2025, 2025

    2025

  9. [9]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,

    J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, F. Xia, E. Chi, Q. V . Le, D. Zhouet al., “Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,”Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems, vol. 35, pp. 24 824–24 837, 2022

    2022

  10. [10]

    Training large language models to reason in a continuous latent space,

    S. Hao, S. Sukhbaatar, D. Su, X. Li, Z. Hu, J. Weston, and Y . Tian, “Training large language models to reason in a continuous latent space,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06769, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Quiet-star: Language models can teach themselves to think before speaking,

    E. Zelikman, G. Harik, Y . Shao, V . Jayasiri, N. Haber, and N. D. Goodman, “Quiet-star: Language models can teach themselves to think before speaking,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.09629, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Think before you speak: Training language models with pause tokens,

    S. Goyal, Z. Ji, A. S. Rawat, A. K. Menon, S. Kumar, and V . Na- garajan, “Think before you speak: Training language models with pause tokens,” inInternational Conference on Learning Repre- sentations, 2024

    2024

  13. [13]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    E. J. Hu, Y . Shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y . Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, W. Chenet al., “Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.”Iclr, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 3, 2022

    2022

  14. [14]

    The power of scale for Parameter-Efficient prompt tuning,

    B. Lester, R. Al-Rfou, and N. Constant, “The power of scale for Parameter-Efficient prompt tuning,” inProceedings of the Con- ference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2021, pp. 3045–3059

    2021

  15. [15]

    Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation,

    X. L. Li and P. Liang, “Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation,” inProceedings of the 59th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2021, pp. 4582–4597

    2021

  16. [16]

    Adaptive computation time for recurrent neural net- works,

    A. Graves, “Adaptive computation time for recurrent neural net- works,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.08983, 2016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  17. [17]

    Pondernet: Learning to ponder,

    A. Banino, J. Balaguer, and C. Blundell, “Pondernet: Learning to ponder,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.05407, 2021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Confident adaptive language mod- eling,

    T. Schuster, A. Fisch, J. Gupta, M. Dehghani, D. Bahri, V . Q. Tran, Y . Tay, and D. Metzler, “Confident adaptive language mod- eling,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2022

    2022

  19. [19]

    DeeBERT: Dynamic early exiting for accelerating BERT inference,

    J. Xin, R. Tang, J. Lee, Y . Yu, and J. Lin, “DeeBERT: Dynamic early exiting for accelerating BERT inference,” inProceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 2020, pp. 2246–2251

    2020

  20. [21]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.21337

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.21337

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [22]

    Common voice: A massively-multilingual speech corpus,

    R. Ardila, M. Branson, K. Davis, M. Henretty, M. K ¨ohler, J. Meyer, R. Morais, L. Saunders, F. M. Tyers, and G. Weber, “Common voice: A massively-multilingual speech corpus,” in Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2020), 2020, pp. 4211–4215

    2020

  22. [23]

    FLEURS: Few- shot learning evaluation of universal representations of speech,

    A. Conneau, M. Ma, S. Khanuja, Y . Zhang, V . Axelrod, S. Dalmia, J. Riesa, C. Rivera, and A. Bapna, “FLEURS: Few- shot learning evaluation of universal representations of speech,” inIEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop, SLT 2022, Doha, Qatar, January 9-12, 2023, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.12446

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [24]

    V oxpopuli: A large- scale multilingual speech corpus for representation learning, semi-supervised learning and interpretation,

    C. Wang, M. Riviere, A. Lee, A. Wu, C. Talnikar, D. Haziza, M. Williamson, J. Pino, and E. Dupoux, “V oxpopuli: A large- scale multilingual speech corpus for representation learning, semi-supervised learning and interpretation,” inProceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Confe...

    2021

  24. [25]

    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,” in IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 2015, pp. 5206–5210

    2015

  25. [26]

    Gigaspeech: An evolving, multi-domain asr cor- pus with 10,000 hours of transcribed audio,

    G. Chen, S. Chai, G.-B. Wang, J. Du, W.-Q. Zhang, C. Weng, D. Su, D. Povey, J. Trmal, J. Zhang, M. Jin, S. Khudanpur, S. Watanabe, S. Zhao, W. Zou, X. Li, X. Yao, Y . Wang, Z. You, and Z. Yan, “Gigaspeech: An evolving, multi-domain asr cor- pus with 10,000 hours of transcribed audio,” inInterspeech 2021, 2021, pp. 3670–3674

    2021

  26. [27]

    The people’s speech: A large-scale diverse english speech recognition dataset for commercial usage,

    D. Galvez, G. Diamos, J. Ciro, J. F. Cer ´on, K. Achorn, A. Gopi, D. Kanter, M. Lam, M. Mazumder, and V . J. Reddi, “The people’s speech: A large-scale diverse english speech recognition dataset for commercial usage,”CoRR, vol. abs/2111.09344, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.09344

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [28]

    Ascend: A spontaneous chinese-english dataset for code-switching in multi-turn conversation,

    H. Lovenia, S. Cahyawijaya, G. I. Winata, P. Xu, Y . Xu, Z. Liu, R. Frieske, T. Yu, W. Dai, E. J. Barezi, Q. Chen, X. Ma, B. E. Shi, and P. Fung, “Ascend: A spontaneous chinese-english dataset for code-switching in multi-turn conversation,” inProceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, 2022, pp. 7259–7268

    2022

  28. [29]

    The ami meeting corpus: A pre- announcement,

    J. Carletta, S. Ashby, S. Bourban, M. Flynn, M. Guillemot, T. Hain, J. Kadlec, V . Karaiskos, W. Kraaij, M. Kronenthal, G. Lathoud, M. Lincoln, A. Lisowska, I. McCowan, W. Post, D. Reidsma, and P. Wellner, “The ami meeting corpus: A pre- announcement,” inProceedings of the Second International Work- shop on Machine Learning for Multimodal Interaction (MLM...

    2006

  29. [30]

    Ted-lium: an auto- matic speech recognition dedicated corpus,

    A. Rousseau, P. Del ´eglise, and Y . Est `eve, “Ted-lium: an auto- matic speech recognition dedicated corpus,” inProceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), 2012, pp. 125–129

    2012