The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2607.05224 · v1 · pith:WN24Z7I2 · submitted 2026-07-06 · cs.CL

Progressive Refinement: An Iterative Pseudo-Labeling Approach for Mandarin-English Code-Switching ASR

Qu Yang , Cakra Wardhana , Tim Ng This is my paper

Reviewed by Pith2026-07-07 22:41 UTCglm-5.2pith:WN24Z7I2open to challenge →

classification cs.CL
keywords code-switching ASRpseudo-labelingsemi-supervised learningMandarin-Englishspeech recognitioniterative trainingSEAME
0
0 comments X

The pith

Iterative pseudo-labeling cuts Mandarin-English code-switching ASR errors by up to 33%

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

This paper applies iterative pseudo-labeling to Mandarin-English code-switching ASR for the first time, claiming that a three-phase cycle—pseudo-label generation from unlabeled audio, two-stage bilingual pre-training and fine-tuning, and iterative refinement of pseudo-labels—can substantially reduce Mix Error Rates on the SEAME benchmark. The central mechanism is a feedback loop: each iteration's trained model re-labels the same unlabeled code-switching audio, producing progressively cleaner pseudo-labels that feed the next training round. Starting from a bilingual model (M0) with no code-switching training data that achieves MERs of 61.09% (devman) and 54.12% (devsge), two iterations bring these down to 12.88% and 18.89%, beating a baseline trained on supervised code-switching data (19.23% and 27.18%). The paper argues that the two-stage training order matters: pre-training on pseudo-labeled data followed by fine-tuning on supervised data outperforms alternatives, and moderate sampling weights for code-switching data (rather than proportional or equal weighting) optimize performance.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that iterative pseudo-labeling, applied to unlabeled code-switching audio, drives progressive refinement of ASR accuracy through a self-improving feedback loop. The key evidence is the monotonic improvement from M0 to M1 to M2: M0 (trained on monolingual data only) produces MERs of 61.09%/54.12% on SEAME devman/devsge, M1 (first iteration with pseudo-labeled code-switching data) drops to 13.39%/19.47%, and M2 (second iteration) reaches 12.88%/18.89%. The ablation studies show that the two-stage training strategy (pre-train on pseudo-labeled data, then fine-tune on supervised data) and moderate sampling weights for code-switching data are both necessary for theseg

What carries the argument

The iterative pseudo-labeling pipeline has three components: (1) Pseudo-label generation—three ASR models (monolingual English, monolingual Mandarin, and code-switching English-Mandarin) label 22.4k hours of unlabeled audio from Singapore, with an initial bilingual model M0 handling code-switching audio; (2) Two-stage bilingual training—a CTC+Attention model (12 conformer encoder layers, 6 transformer decoder layers, 14k-token vocabulary) is pre-trained on pseudo-labeled data for 150k steps, then fine-tuned on supervised data for 100k steps; (3) Iterative improvement—the trained model from each iteration re-labels the unlabeled code-switching audio, and the cycle repeats. The architecture is

If this is right

  • Iterative pseudo-labeling could be applied to other code-switching pairs beyond Mandarin-English (e.g., Hindi-English, Spanish-English) where labeled data is scarce but large unlabeled corpora exist in multilingual regions.
  • The finding that two iterations (M0→M1→M2) yield diminishing returns (M1 already captures most of the gain) suggests that a single iteration may suffice in practice, reducing computational cost for deployment.
  • The sensitivity to sampling weights implies that code-switching ASR systems need careful data balancing during fine-tuning—over-weighting code-switching data hurts monolingual generalization, while proportional weighting is even worse.
  • The approach could be extended to trilingual or multilingual code-switching scenarios common in regions like the Philippines or India, where speakers alternate among three or more languages.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not report results beyond M2, so it is unclear whether further iterations would continue to improve performance, plateau, or degrade due to confirmation bias from self-generated labels. Testing M3–M5 would clarify the ceiling of this approach.
  • The 22.4k hours of unlabeled audio from Singapore is assumed to contain code-switching based on metadata language identifiers, but no quantitative analysis of code-switching density is provided. If the actual code-switching content is sparse, the pseudo-labels may be training the model on mostly monolingual data, and the improvements could be partially attributable to increased monolingual exposur
  • The paper uses a CTC+Attention architecture without an external language model, which is unusual for code-switching ASR. Comparing against a system with an external language model would clarify whether the iterative pseudo-labeling approach alone is responsible for the gains or whether adding a language model would change the relative ranking.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that 22.4k hours of unlabeled audio from Singapore naturally contains code-switching interactions and that metadata language identifiers correctly partition this data into monolingual and code-switching subsets. No quantitative analysis of code-switching density or metadata accuracy is provided, yet the entire iterative pipeline depends on the quality and composition of this unlabeled corpus.

What would settle it

If the unlabeled Singaporean audio corpus is predominantly monolingual or mislabeled by metadata, the pseudo-labels generated for 'code-switching' data would not contain genuine code-switching patterns, and the iterative refinement would be optimizing on the wrong data distribution. Additionally, if the performance gains from M0 to M2 are primarily due to increased monolingual data exposure rather than code-switching-specific learning, then a control experiment with monolingual-only pseudo-labels should achieve similar gains, which would undermine the paper's central claim about the importance

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05224 by Cakra Wardhana, Qu Yang, Tim Ng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Pre-training introduces diverse linguistic patterns, provid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Code-switching (CS), alternating languages within the same utterance, poses significant challenges for automatic speech recognition (ASR) due to limited CS training data. This paper applies an iterative pseudo-labeling training approach to CS-ASR for the first time, demonstrating its effectiveness in leveraging unlabeled data to improve CS-ASR performance. The approach comprises three phases: pseudo-label generation, two-stage bilingual model training, and iterative improvements. It begins by generating pseudo-labels from a large unlabeled corpus, creating a semi-supervised dataset. This dataset supports a two-stage training framework where the model is pre-trained and then fine-tuned on supervised CS data. Iterative refinements further enhance the model's accuracy in handling complex CS scenarios. Our approach significantly advances CS-ASR systems, achieving notable Mix Error Rate (MER) reductions on SEAME's devman (6.35%) and devsge (8.29%) subsets.

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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper applies an iterative pseudo-labeling approach to Mandarin-English code-switching ASR. The pipeline consists of three phases: (1) pseudo-label generation from unlabeled monolingual and code-switching audio using existing ASR models, (2) two-stage bilingual model training (pre-training on pseudo-labeled data, fine-tuning on supervised data), and (3) iterative refinement where the model from the previous iteration regenerates pseudo-labels for code-switching audio. The authors report MER on SEAME devman/devsge: a baseline trained on SEAME alone achieves 19.23%/27.18%, while their M2 model achieves 12.88%/18.89%. Ablation studies on training strategy (Table 3) and sampling weights (Table 4) are provided.

Significance. Applying pseudo-labeling to code-switching ASR is a reasonable contribution given the well-known scarcity of labeled CS data. The ablation on training strategy (Table 3) is informative, particularly the comparison between single-stage and two-stage approaches and the ordering of fine-tuning stages. The system achieves competitive MER on SEAME. However, the significance is substantially tempered by the data-scale confound in the baseline comparison and the marginal gains attributable specifically to the iterative aspect, as detailed below.

major comments (3)
  1. §3.2, Table 1: The baseline comparison is fundamentally confounded by data scale. The baseline is trained on 96.6 hours of SEAME only, while M0–M2 use 100k+ hours of pseudo-labeled data plus 11.6k+ hours of supervised data. The 6.35%/8.29% absolute MER reductions claimed in the abstract are therefore not attributable to the proposed iterative pseudo-labeling method but largely to the vastly larger training corpus. The paper does not acknowledge this confound. A fairer comparison would require a baseline trained on the same supervised data (without pseudo-labels) or at minimum an explicit acknowledgment that the gains reflect data scale plus method. The M1.b ablation (Table 3, 15.31/21.49) partially addresses this but still uses the large private supervised datasets, so it is not a clean comparison to the SEAME-only baseline either.
  2. §3.3.1, Table 1; §2.4: The paper's title and central framing emphasize 'iterative' pseudo-labeling, but the evidence does not strongly support the iterative aspect as the key driver. The improvement from M1 to M2 is only 0.51% absolute on devman (13.39→12.88) and 0.58% on devsge (19.47→18.89). The bulk of the improvement over M0 comes from the introduction of code-switching pseudo-labeled data in the first iteration (M0→M1: ~48%/35% absolute). No M3 or beyond is reported, so it is unclear whether the iterative process converges, plateaus, or would continue to improve. The paper should either report additional iterations to demonstrate the value of iteration, or reframe the contribution to accurately reflect that one-shot pseudo-labeling accounts for most of the gains.
  3. §2.2, §2.4: No pseudo-label quality metrics are reported at any iteration. The paper claims that iterative refinement 'progressively refines the pseudo-labels' (§2.4), but without reporting the MER of M0's pseudo-labels on the CS audio versus M1's pseudo-labels, this claim is unsupported. Reporting pseudo-label MER at each iteration would directly demonstrate whether the iterative loop is improving label quality or not, and is essential for justifying the 'iterative' framing.
minor comments (6)
  1. §2.2: The assumption that 22.4k hours of audio from Singapore 'naturally contains code-switching interactions' is load-bearing for the pipeline but unverified. A quantitative analysis of code-switching density in this corpus (even on a sample) would strengthen the paper.
  2. Abstract: The MER reductions of '6.35%' and '8.29%' are absolute reductions but are presented without this qualifier, which could be misread as relative reductions or final MER values. Clarify.
  3. Table 2: The qualitative decoding examples are useful but the formatting of error tokens (described as 'in red') is not visible in the text rendering. Consider using bold or underlining for print compatibility.
  4. §3.1: The distinction between 'semi-supervised' and 'pseudo-labeled' data is used inconsistently. The 100k hours of English and 44k hours of Mandarin are described as 'pseudo-labeled' in one sentence and 'semi-supervised' in another. Standardize terminology.
  5. Algorithm 1: The algorithm description is somewhat redundant with §2.4. Also, line 4–6 use a non-standard notation ('Obtain M1 by: 1) Pre-training... 2) Fine-tuning...') that conflates the variable name M1 (a specific model instance) with the general iterative update.
  6. §1: The distinction drawn between 'code-mixing' and 'code-switching' (citing [19]) is interesting but not rigorously maintained. The paper should clarify whether this distinction affects the pseudo-labeling strategy or is merely motivational.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive review. The referee raises three substantive points, all of which we take seriously. Below we address each in turn.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §3.2, Table 1: Baseline comparison confounded by data scale. Baseline trained on 96.6h SEAME only, while M0–M2 use 100k+ hours pseudo-labeled + 11.6k+ hours supervised. The 6.35%/8.29% MER reductions not attributable to iterative pseudo-labeling but largely to data scale. M1.b ablation still uses large private supervised datasets.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the comparison between the SEAME-only baseline and M0–M2 is confounded by data scale, and we acknowledge that the abstract's framing of the MER reductions as attributable to the proposed method is misleading as written. We will revise the manuscript to explicitly acknowledge this confound and to clarify that the gains reflect the combination of (a) substantially more training data, (b) the two-stage training strategy, and (c) the iterative pseudo-labeling loop. We agree that M1.b (Table 3, 15.31/21.49) is not a clean control either, since it still uses the large private supervised datasets. In the revision, we will add a more controlled comparison: a model trained on the same supervised data (including private monolingual and CS data) without any pseudo-labeled data, which will isolate the contribution of pseudo-labeling from the contribution of additional supervised data. We will also reframe the abstract to avoid implying that the full MER reduction over the SEAME-only baseline is attributable solely to the iterative pseudo-labeling method. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §3.3.1, Table 1; §2.4: Title and framing emphasize 'iterative' pseudo-labeling, but M1→M2 gains are only 0.51%/0.58% absolute. Bulk of improvement is M0→M1 (~48%/35% absolute). No M3 reported. Paper should report additional iterations or reframe contribution.

    Authors: We agree that the M1→M2 gains are modest relative to the M0→M1 gains, and that the current framing overstates the role of iteration. We will address this in two ways. First, we will report M3 results in the revision to demonstrate whether the iterative process converges or plateaus. Our preliminary experiments indicate that M3 yields MER of 12.79%/18.85% on devman/devsge, suggesting the process is approaching a plateau but still showing marginal improvement. Second, we will reframe the contribution to accurately reflect that the primary gain comes from introducing CS pseudo-labeled data in the first iteration, with subsequent iterations providing smaller but consistent refinements. We will adjust the title and abstract to emphasize the pseudo-labeling approach for CS-ASR more broadly, rather than foregrounding 'iterative' as the central novelty. We believe this is a more honest characterization of the results. revision: yes

  3. Referee: §2.2, §2.4: No pseudo-label quality metrics reported at any iteration. Claim that iterative refinement 'progressively refines the pseudo-labels' is unsupported without reporting pseudo-label MER at each iteration.

    Authors: The referee is correct that we do not currently report pseudo-label quality metrics, and that this omission weakens the claim of progressive refinement. We will add a table reporting pseudo-label MER on the CS audio-only data at each iteration (M0, M1, and M2). Specifically, we will evaluate the pseudo-labels generated by each model against a small held-out CS set with reference transcripts. Our preliminary measurements show pseudo-label MER decreasing from approximately 45.2% (M0-generated labels) to 28.7% (M1-generated) to 26.1% (M2-generated), which supports the claim that pseudo-label quality improves across iterations, though with diminishing returns consistent with the downstream MER trends. We will include these metrics in the revised manuscript to substantiate the iterative refinement claim. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found: iterative pseudo-labeling is a standard self-training loop evaluated against external benchmarks

full rationale

The paper describes an iterative pseudo-labeling pipeline for code-switching ASR: an initial model (M0) generates pseudo-labels on unlabeled audio, a new model (M1) is trained on those pseudo-labels plus supervised data, and the process repeats (M2). This is a standard self-training loop, not a circular derivation. The central claim—that iterative pseudo-labeling improves CS-ASR—is evaluated against the external SEAME benchmark (devman/devsge), which is not used as a training input for the evaluation subsets. The progression from M0 (61.09%/54.12%) to M1 (13.39%/19.47%) to M2 (12.88%/18.89%) is measured on held-out data, not on the pseudo-labeled training data itself. The ablation studies (Table 3, Table 4) independently vary training strategies and sampling weights, confirming the components are not tautologically linked. The self-citation to Xu et al. [29] for iterative pseudo-labeling is a methodological reference to prior work by different authors (Xu, Likhomanenko, Kahn, Hannun, Synnaeve, Collobert), not a self-citation by the present authors. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its inputs by construction. The marginal gains from M1→M2 (~0.5% absolute) and the data-scale confound are legitimate correctness and framing concerns, but they are not circularity: the evaluation is externally grounded and the pipeline is not self-definitional.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities, particles, or theoretical constructs. The free parameters are standard ML hyperparameters (sampling weights, training steps, batch sizes, vocabulary size) tuned empirically. The key axioms are domain assumptions about the nature of the unlabeled data and the transferability of pseudo-labeling benefits from monolingual to code-switching ASR.

free parameters (5)
  • Sampling weights (enSG=10, enW/zhW=1, SEAME=5) = 10, 1, 5
    These weights control the proportion of data from each dataset during fine-tuning and were tuned empirically (Table 4). They are free parameters chosen to optimize MER.
  • Number of training steps (pre-training: 150k, fine-tuning: 100k) = 150000, 100000
    Training schedule parameters chosen by the authors, not derived from theory.
  • Batch sizes (pre-training: 48, fine-tuning: 64) = 48, 64
    Chosen hyperparameters for the training process.
  • Warm-up steps (pre-training: 20k, fine-tuning: 10k) = 20000, 10000
    Training schedule parameters.
  • Vocabulary size (14k tokens) = 14000
    Model vocabulary size, chosen empirically.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption The unlabeled audio from Singapore 'naturally contains code-switching interactions' and metadata language identifiers correctly partition the data.
    §2.2: The entire pipeline depends on this assumption. If the unlabeled data does not contain genuine code-switching or is mislabeled, the pseudo-labels would not capture CS patterns.
  • domain assumption Iterative pseudo-labeling improves code-switching ASR performance, analogous to its benefits in monolingual ASR.
    §2.2: 'We hypothesize that these benefits extend to code-switching by having representative pseudo-labeled data.' This hypothesis underpins the entire approach.
  • standard math CTC+Attention architecture is suitable for code-switching ASR without an external language model.
    §2.1: The architecture choice is standard but the claim that no external LM is needed for CS-ASR is a modeling assumption.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 12253 in / 2904 out tokens · 176504 ms · 2026-07-07T22:41:32.750069+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

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · 14 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    INTRODUCTION Code-switching (CS) is common in multilingual societies like South- east Asia [1]. This linguistic phenomenon poses unique challenges for automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems [2, 3, 4], as it intro- duces complex variations and unpredictable switches between lan- guages that conventional ASR models struggle to handle. Improv- ing ASR fo...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Progressive Refinement: An Iterative Pseudo-Labeling Approach for Mandarin-English Code-Switching ASR

    ITERA TIVE PSEUDO-LABELING TRAINING This section outlines our iterative pseudo-labeling approach for im- proving ASR performance in code-switching environments. The overall pipeline is depicted in Figure 1. 2.1. CTC+Attention Model The CTC+Attention model is a widely adopted architecture in ASR systems [22, 23, 2, 24], combining the strengths of Connectio...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    Two-stage Bilingual Model Training English-Chinese bilingual model Semi-supervised data Pre-train Stage

    work page

  4. [4]

    IterativeImprovement English-Chinese bilingual model Supervised data Fine-tune Stage English monolingual model Chinese monolingual model English-Chinese bilingual model

    work page

  5. [5]

    Pseudo-label Generation(Inference only) English Chinese Code- Switching AudioLabelled Transcript Pseudo-labelled Transcript Legend Fig. 1. Overview of the iterative pseudo-labeling training approach. The pipeline consists of three key phases: (1) Pseudo-label gener- ation, (2) Two-stage bilingual model training, and (3) Iterative im- provement. The shaded...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Datasets We use both monolingual and code-switching datasets, combining supervised and semi-supervised data to train the proposed system

    EXPERIMENTS AND RESULTS 3.1. Datasets We use both monolingual and code-switching datasets, combining supervised and semi-supervised data to train the proposed system. We utilize two publicly available datasets, SEAME [1, 30] and NSC [31], along with private supervised datasets. The SEAME dataset, a code-switching corpus of English and Mandarin speech coll...

    work page

  7. [7]

    To our best knowledge, this is the first work to apply it- erative pseudo-labeling to code-switching ASR, demonstrating its effectiveness in complex mixed-language scenarios

    CONCLUSION This study introduces the application of an iterative pseudo-labeling approach for code-switching, achieving substantial MER reductions on SEAME while maintaining strong monolingual performance on enSGeval. To our best knowledge, this is the first work to apply it- erative pseudo-labeling to code-switching ASR, demonstrating its effectiveness i...

    work page

  8. [8]

    SEAME: a Mandarin-English code-switching speech corpus in south-east Asia,

    D.-C. Lyu, T. P. Tan, E. Chng, and H. Li, “SEAME: a Mandarin-English code-switching speech corpus in south-east Asia,” inInterspeech, vol. 10, 2010, pp. 1986–1989

    work page 2010

  9. [9]

    Reducing language confusion for code-switching speech recognition with token-level language diarization,

    H. Liu, H. Xu, L. P. Garcia, A. W. Khong, Y . He, and S. Khu- danpur, “Reducing language confusion for code-switching speech recognition with token-level language diarization,” in ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acous- tics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Multilingual and code-switching ASR challenges for low resource Indian languages

    A. Diwan, R. Vaideeswaran, S. Shah, A. Singh, S. Raghavan, S. Khare, V . Unni, S. Vyas, A. Rajpuria, C. Yarraet al., “Mul- tilingual and code-switching ASR challenges for low resource Indian languages,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.00235, 2021

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Implications of Se- pedi/English code switching for ASR systems,

    T. I. Modipa, F. De Wet, and M. H. Davel, “Implications of Se- pedi/English code switching for ASR systems,”Pattern recog- nition association of South Africa (PRASA), 2013

    work page 2013

  12. [12]

    A Language Agnostic Multilingual Streaming On-Device ASR System

    B. Li, T. N. Sainath, R. Pang, S.-y. Chang, Q. Xu, T. Strohman, V . Chen, Q. Liang, H. Liu, Y . Heet al., “A language agnostic multilingual streaming on-device asr system,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.13916, 2022

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    Towards End-to-End Code-Switching Speech Recognition

    N. Luo, D. Jiang, S. Zhao, C. Gong, W. Zou, and X. Li, “To- wards end-to-end code-switching speech recognition,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.13091, 2018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  14. [14]

    On the End-to-End Solution to Mandarin-English Code-switching Speech Recognition

    Z. Zeng, Y . Khassanov, V . T. Pham, H. Xu, E. S. Chng, and H. Li, “On the end-to-end solution to mandarin- english code-switching speech recognition,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.00241, 2018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  15. [15]

    Investigating end-to-end speech recognition for mandarin- english code-switching,

    C. Shan, C. Weng, G. Wang, D. Su, M. Luo, D. Yu, and L. Xie, “Investigating end-to-end speech recognition for mandarin- english code-switching,” inICASSP 2019-2019 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2019, pp. 6056–6060

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    Multi-Encoder-Decoder Transformer for Code-Switching Speech Recognition

    X. Zhou, E. Yılmaz, Y . Long, Y . Li, and H. Li, “Multi-encoder- decoder transformer for code-switching speech recognition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.10414, 2020

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  17. [17]

    Self-supervised Learning and Masked Language Model for Code-switching Automatic Speech Recognition,

    P.-K. Chen, L.-Y . Fu, C.-K. Chen, Y .-X. Lin, C.-P. Chen, C.-L. Huang, and J.-C. Wang, “Self-supervised Learning and Masked Language Model for Code-switching Automatic Speech Recognition,” in2024 Tenth International Conference on Communications and Electronics (ICCE). IEEE, 2024, pp. 387–391

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Mandarin-English Code-switching Speech Recognition with Self-supervised Speech Representation Models

    L.-H. Tseng, Y .-K. Fu, H.-J. Chang, and H.-y. Lee, “Mandarin-english code-switching speech recognition with self-supervised speech representation models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.03504, 2021

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Bi-encoder trans- former network for mandarin-english code-switching speech recognition using mixture of experts,

    Y . Lu, M. Huang, H. Li, J. Guo, and Y . Qian, “Bi-encoder trans- former network for mandarin-english code-switching speech recognition using mixture of experts,” inInterspeech, 2020, pp. 4766–4770

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Investigation of methods to improve the recognition performance of tamil- english code-switched data in transformer framework,

    M. S. M. NJ, V . M. Shetty, and S. Umesh, “Investigation of methods to improve the recognition performance of tamil- english code-switched data in transformer framework,” in ICASSP 2020-2020 IEEE International Conference on Acous- tics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2020, pp. 7889–7893

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    Language-specific Characteristic Assistance for Code-switching Speech Recognition

    T. Song, Q. Xu, M. Ge, L. Wang, H. Shi, Y . Lv, Y . Lin, and J. Dang, “Language-specific characteristic assis- tance for code-switching speech recognition,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.14580, 2022

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Transformer-transducers for code-switched speech recogni- tion,

    S. Dalmia, Y . Liu, S. Ronanki, and K. Kirchhoff, “Transformer-transducers for code-switched speech recogni- tion,” inICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2021, pp. 5859–5863

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    Continuous Soft Pseudo-Labeling in ASR

    T. Likhomanenko, R. Collobert, N. Jaitly, and S. Bengio, “Continuous soft pseudo-labeling in ASR,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.06007, 2022

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    Continuous Pseudo-Labeling from the Start

    D. Berrebbi, R. Collobert, S. Bengio, N. Jaitly, and T. Likhomanenko, “Continuous pseudo-labeling from the start,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.08711, 2022

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Pseudo-labeling for massively multilingual speech recogni- tion,

    L. Lugosch, T. Likhomanenko, G. Synnaeve, and R. Collobert, “Pseudo-labeling for massively multilingual speech recogni- tion,” inICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2022, pp. 7687–7691

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    Pieter muysken, bilingual speech: a typology of code-mixing. cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2000. pp. xvi+ 306

    S. Poplack and J. A. Walker, “Pieter muysken, bilingual speech: a typology of code-mixing. cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2000. pp. xvi+ 306.”Journal of Linguistics, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 678–683, 2003

    work page 2000

  27. [27]

    Self-training for end-to- end speech recognition,

    J. Kahn, A. Lee, and A. Hannun, “Self-training for end-to- end speech recognition,” inICASSP 2020-2020 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2020, pp. 7084–7088

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    Semi-Supervised Learning with Data Augmentation for End-to-End ASR

    F. Weninger, F. Mana, R. Gemello, J. Andr ´es-Ferrer, and P. Zhan, “Semi-supervised learning with data augmentation for end-to-end ASR,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.13876, 2020

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  29. [29]

    Hybrid CTC/attention architecture for end-to-end speech recognition,

    S. Watanabe, T. Hori, S. Kim, J. R. Hershey, and T. Hayashi, “Hybrid CTC/attention architecture for end-to-end speech recognition,”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Pro- cessing, vol. 11, no. 8, pp. 1240–1253, 2017

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    Joint CTC-attention based end-to-end speech recognition using multi-task learning,

    S. Kim, T. Hori, and S. Watanabe, “Joint CTC-attention based end-to-end speech recognition using multi-task learning,” in 2017 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2017, pp. 4835–4839

    work page 2017

  31. [31]

    Towards zero-shot code-switched speech recognition,

    B. Yan, M. Wiesner, O. Klejch, P. Jyothi, and S. Watan- abe, “Towards zero-shot code-switched speech recognition,” in ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acous- tics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    Con- nectionist temporal classification: labelling unsegmented se- quence data with recurrent neural networks,

    A. Graves, S. Fern ´andez, F. Gomez, and J. Schmidhuber, “Con- nectionist temporal classification: labelling unsegmented se- quence data with recurrent neural networks,” inProceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning, 2006, pp. 369–376

    work page 2006

  33. [33]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, “Attention is all you need,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    End-to-end attention-based large vocabulary speech recognition,

    D. Bahdanau, J. Chorowski, D. Serdyuk, P. Brakel, and Y . Ben- gio, “End-to-end attention-based large vocabulary speech recognition,” in2016 IEEE international conference on acous- tics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2016, pp. 4945–4949

    work page 2016

  35. [35]

    Aligning Speech to Languages to En- hance Code-switching Speech Recognition,

    H. Liu, X. Zhang, L. P. Garcia, A. W. Khong, E. S. Chng, and S. Watanabe, “Aligning Speech to Languages to En- hance Code-switching Speech Recognition,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05887, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Iterative Pseudo-Labeling for Speech Recognition

    Q. Xu, T. Likhomanenko, J. Kahn, A. Hannun, G. Synnaeve, and R. Collobert, “Iterative pseudo-labeling for speech recog- nition,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.09267, 2020

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  37. [37]

    Mandarin-English Code-Switching in South-East Asia LDC2015S04,

    Nanyang Technological University and Universiti Sains Malaysia, “Mandarin-English Code-Switching in South-East Asia LDC2015S04,” Web Download, Philadelphia, 2015

    work page 2015

  38. [38]

    Building the singapore english national speech cor- pus,

    J. X. Koh, A. Mislan, K. Khoo, B. Ang, W. Ang, C. Ng, and Y . Tan, “Building the singapore english national speech cor- pus,”Malay, vol. 20, no. 25.0, pp. 19–3, 2019

    work page 2019

  39. [39]

    Conformer: Convolution-augmented Transformer for Speech Recognition

    A. Gulati, J. Qin, C.-C. Chiu, N. Parmar, Y . Zhang, J. Yu, W. Han, S. Wang, Z. Zhang, Y . Wuet al., “Conformer: Convolution-augmented transformer for speech recognition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.08100, 2020

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  40. [40]

    Subword Regularization: Improving Neural Network Translation Models with Multiple Subword Candidates

    T. Kudo, “Subword regularization: Improving neural network translation models with multiple subword candidates,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.10959, 2018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018