Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Synthetic Data Generation for Phrase Break Prediction with Large Language Model

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that LLM-generated phrase break annotations—prompted with just a handful of examples—can match or beat human-annotated training data for TTS pause prediction across English, French, and Spanish.

desk verdict A useful first study of LLM-generated phrase breaks, but the 'beats human annotation' claim is not backed by the metrics as reported. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18044 v1 pith:CVGUOLEC submitted 2025-07-24 cs.CL cs.AI

Hoyeon Lee , Sejung Son , Ye-Eun Kang , Jong-Hwan Kim This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords syntheticdatagenerationphrasebreakpredictionlargelanguagemodelstext-to-speechfew-shotpromptingcross-lingualtransferannotationconsistencyprosody
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Phrase break prediction decides where a text-to-speech system pauses, and it usually depends on thousands of human annotations from audio or text. This paper tries to show that a large language model, given a few example sentences and a careful prompt, can generate phrase break labels good enough to train a production-style model to match or beat human-annotated training data. The authors test this in English, French, and Spanish, using a compact multilingual transformer as the downstream model. If the claim holds, phrase break datasets—including for lower-resource languages—could be produced for a small fraction of the human effort. The paper's evidence rests on alignment with text-oriented annotations and on F1 and human scores in a downstream training evaluation.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a few-shot prompting protocol that turns a large language model into an annotation tool: a system prompt assigns the LLM a linguistic-expert persona and instructs it to read the sentence aloud, while task examples show it how to attach "#" for phonetic pauses and "/" for sentence boundaries. With as few as 16 examples, the annotations converge to the text-oriented human annotation style, reaching high reliability against H-T; the cross-lingual variant switches the persona to a multilingual expert and mixes English and target-language examples. The downstream evaluation then trains a distilled multilingual language model (MiniLM) on human versus synthetic labels to measure practical impact.

What would settle it

Have native listeners rank synthesized speech from three TTS front-ends trained on H-A, H-T, and LLM annotations; if the H-A front-end is preferred for naturalness despite the LLM's high α against H-T, the practical claim for TTS quality fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that LLM-generated synthetic annotations can stand in for human phrase break labels. Concretely, with 16 few-shot examples (and up to 256 for English), the LLM's annotations reach an inter-annotator reliability coefficient of at least 0.85 against text-oriented human annotations (H-T), while agreement between the two human annotation styles is only about 36–38%. When a small multilingual model (MiniLM) is trained separately on human and synthetic labels, the synthetic-trained models post equal or better F1 in all three languages, and on CommonVoice utterances they receive equal or better human scores. The pattern is language-dependent: English examples help French strongly, help Spanish only in balanced mixtures, and hurt Spanish when used alone. The paper reads this as evidence that synthetic annotations are consistent, scalable, and language-transferable for phrase break prediction.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on treating text-oriented human annotation (H-T) as the right reference: the two human styles agree on only about 36–38% of utterances, and the LLM was prompted to imitate the text style, so a reader who cares about audio prosody should not take the high H-T agreement as proof of TTS naturalness.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Phrase break training sets can be produced from a prompt and a handful of examples instead of thousands of human annotations, cutting cost and time for TTS front-end development.
  • Languages with scarce annotation resources can borrow English examples: a French or Spanish dataset generated with 16 examples matches or beats human-annotated training data.
  • Because the LLM aligns with text-oriented annotation, synthetic data offers a consistent alternative where audio-oriented labels vary with speaker and recording conditions.
  • The downstream MiniLM results show the gain is not just label-level: models actually trained on synthetic labels perform comparably or better on held-out and CommonVoice text.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves untested whether steering the prompt toward audio-oriented prosody (for example, by giving the LLM examples from H-A annotation or acoustic descriptions) would produce labels that align better with perceived naturalness.
  • The cross-lingual recipe suggests a cheap low-resource pipeline of mixing English examples with a small target-language set, but the paper only tests French and Spanish; the rhythm-based explanation predicts the recipe may fail when source and target languages differ more sharply, such as tonal languages.
  • The strongest practical test would be a listener preference study on synthesized speech from each annotation type; annotation-side F1 and human scores do not directly measure perceived naturalness.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper explores using GPT-4o mini to generate synthetic phrase break annotations for text-to-speech front-ends, comparing these with two human annotation styles: audio-oriented (H-A) and text-oriented (H-T). The experiments cover English, French, and Spanish, with evaluation via pass rate, agreement, Krippendorff's alpha, expert human scores, and F1 scores on MiniLM models trained on the different annotation types. The authors claim that LLM-generated synthetic annotations can overcome the cost and inconsistency of human annotation and that models trained on synthetic data can perform comparably or better than those trained on human annotations.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the work would be practically valuable: it promises a low-cost, scalable route to multilingual phrase break labels for TTS using only a handful of few-shot examples. The paper's explicit comparison of H-A and H-T annotation styles and its documentation of their low mutual agreement (36-38%) is a useful contribution, as is the exploration of cross-lingual prompt transfer. The authors also report several sanity checks, such as pass rates and Krippendorff's alpha, which go beyond a single metric. However, as discussed below, the reported evaluation does not currently support the paper's stronger conclusions about superiority over human annotation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Figure 2 and Section 4.1] The prompt in Figure 2 defines only two break symbols, '#' and '/', yet Section 4.1 states that the data are annotated with three phrase break labels (AP, IP, SB) and Table 1 reports distributions over AP, IP, and SB. No conversion rule between the two-symbol LLM output and the three-level annotation scheme is given. Because all F1 scores in Tables 2-4 depend on the label definitions, this mismatch makes the quantitative comparisons ambiguous and needs to be resolved explicitly.
  2. [Section 6.1 and Table 4] The F1 column in Table 4 is self-referential: models are selected by macro-F1 on a held-out test set drawn from the same annotation data used for training, and the F1 reported is agreement with those same annotation labels. This measures how predictable each annotation scheme is under the trained model, not how useful the labels are for speech synthesis. The independent CommonVoice human scores do not consistently support the conclusion of superiority: e.g., in French H-T scores 82.8 while LLM FS k=16 scores 69.0, and in English H-T scores 72.2 while LLM k=16 scores 64.6; only selected LLM configurations exceed the human-trained baselines. The claim that 'LLM annotations steadily outperformed human-labeled data in F1' is therefore not sufficient to establish practical superiority.
  3. [Sections 4.2.2 and 5.2.1] The evaluation is partly circular with respect to annotation style. The LLM is explicitly prompted to act as a linguistic expert who reads text aloud, and the human score is obtained from linguistic experts judging text-annotation pairs; the high agreement with H-T (alpha >= 0.85) and the high human scores for LLM output are thus partly by construction. Since H-A and H-T agree on only about 36-38% of the data, choosing H-T as the reference decisively favors the LLM. The manuscript needs an audio-based or perceptual evaluation, or at minimum a direct comparison showing that H-T-style labels (and hence LLM labels) improve TTS naturalness over H-A-style labels.
  4. [Section 5.1 and Table 3] The human score metric is described only as a binary acceptable/unacceptable judgment by a linguistic expert on each text-annotation pair, but no inter-evaluator agreement or number of evaluators is reported. Since this metric is used to support claims such as 'H-T serves as a more consistent ground truth' and to compare cross-lingual configurations, its reliability should be quantified. Without inter-annotator agreement, the reported differences of a few points in human score may not be meaningful.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3 and Figure 2] The example in Figure 2 marks 'coming up,#' without a space before the comma, while the output format states that the original spacing must be maintained; please clarify whether break symbols are attached to words before or after punctuation and whether the displayed example is representative.
  2. [Section 4.1] The dataset description says 1,000 English utterances from eight native speakers but does not specify how many utterances per speaker or how domains are balanced; this information would help assess possible speaker confounding in H-A.
  3. [Section 6.1 and Table 4] The phrase 'human scores on CommonVoice' is used in Section 6.2, but the earlier definition of human score in Section 5.1 refers to text-annotation pairs; please clarify what was evaluated on CommonVoice and how the scores were obtained.
  4. [Table 2] The zero-shot human score is reported as 0, but the pass rate in Table 1 is 98.1%; please clarify how a pass-rate of 98.1% is consistent with a human score of 0, or whether the zero-score reflects a different failure mode such as correct formatting but incorrect break placement.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Table 4's F1 comparison is self-referential (test labels come from the same annotation scheme used for training), and the human-score metric is text-oriented, matching the LLM's prompt; the synthetic-data superiority claim is only partially supported.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6.1, Training paragraph; Section 6.2, first paragraph; Table 4]
    "The model achieving the highest macro-F1 score on the test set is chosen for evaluation. ... Table 4 presents macro-F1 scores on the test set and human scores on CommonVoice. The model trained on LLM annotations achieved the highest F1 in English, suggesting that lower subjectivity and greater consistency enhance performance."

    Each row's macro-F1 is computed against test labels drawn from the same annotation type that was used to train that model. For the LLM rows, those test labels were produced by the same GPT-4o-mini prompt used for the training data, so a high F1 measures how well MiniLM reproduces the LLM's own labeling style, not whether the synthetic labels improve prosodic quality. The paper itself attributes the gain to 'lower subjectivity and greater consistency,' which is a self-consistency effect. Thus the claimed F1 superiority of LLM-trained models is forced by the evaluation design rather than by an external standard.

  2. self definitional [Section 5.1, Metrics paragraph; Table 2]
    "We introduce a human score where a linguistic expert conducts a binary evaluation (acceptable/unacceptable) on each text-annotation pair."

    The human-score metric is defined over text-annotation pairs only, with no audio input. The LLM prompt (Figure 2) instructs the model to act as a linguistic expert and annotate from text, producing text-oriented labels of the same style as H-T. Consequently, the evaluation metric is aligned with the LLM's generation objective: high human scores for LLM annotations largely confirm that the LLM succeeded at the text-oriented annotation style it was explicitly prompted to generate, and the paper itself notes that H-T's higher score reflects its consistency rather than superiority over H-A. This does not independently demonstrate that synthetic labels improve audio-based prosody for TTS.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that LLM-generated annotations can replace human annotations for phrase break prediction, with models trained on synthetic data performing comparably or better. The macro-F1 evaluation in Table 4 is self-referential: each model is scored against held-out labels from the same annotation source it was trained on, so the LLM-trained models' higher F1 reflects the internal consistency of GPT-4o-mini's labels, not external prosodic quality. The human-score evaluation, while conducted by independent linguistic experts, is performed on text-annotation pairs only, and the LLM was explicitly prompted to produce text-oriented annotations, so the metric is aligned with the generation method. The paper acknowledges that H-A captures speech variability and that the F1 gains arise from 'lower subjectivity and greater consistency.' Some external evidence exists via the CommonVoice human scores, though no listening test on synthesized speech is described, so the circularity is partial rather than total. Self-citations (e.g., [3]) are present but only for metric conventions and annotation definitions, not as load-bearing support for the main result.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes no fitted model parameters; the LLM itself is a pre-trained black box with its own hidden training data. The free choices are experimental hyperparameters (k and language mix) that are selected based on the evaluation results. The central claim rests on domain assumptions about what phrase break annotations should look like and an undocumented label mapping.

free parameters (3)
  • Number of few-shot examples (k) = 16 for French/Spanish, 256 for English
    k is selected based on performance; the paper does not describe a held-out tuning protocol, so these choices may be overfit to the evaluation sets.
  • Cross-lingual language-mix ratio (En:X) = Varies: En8+X8, En16+X0, etc.
    The paper reports results for configurations that performed well on each language's test set, without specifying a pre-registered selection rule.
  • LLM decoding settings = temperature=0.0, top-p=1.0
    Fixed decoding settings; these are standard choices but still hand-picked.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The LLM's text-based judgment of where phonetic pauses occur is a valid proxy for prosodic phrase breaks.
    The entire method relies on the premise that a language model's 'speak it aloud' instruction produces phrase break labels comparable to expert annotation.
  • ad hoc to paper The three-level phrase break scheme (AP, IP, SB) can be reduced to the two symbols (#, /) shown in the prompt, or the LLM was given additional instructions not shown.
    Figure 2 defines only # and /, yet Tables 1-4 report AP and IP separately; the conversion or omitted instructions are not documented, which is load-bearing for the F1 comparisons.
  • domain assumption The human score (binary acceptable/unacceptable by a linguistic expert) is an unbiased measure of annotation quality.
    The evaluator is independent of the annotators, but the metric may inherit a text-oriented bias; H-T receives 85.7 vs 56.3 for H-A, suggesting the score favors syntactic structure.
  • domain assumption English few-shot examples transfer useful knowledge to French and Spanish phrase break annotation.
    The cross-lingual transfer method assumes that structural similarities between English and the target languages, or universal prosodic patterns, are captured by the LLM.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Synthetic Data Generation for Phrase Break Prediction with Large Language Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CVGUOLEC

@misc{pith2026250718044,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Synthetic Data Generation for Phrase Break Prediction with Large Language Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CVGUOLEC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18044}
}
read the original abstract

Current approaches to phrase break prediction address crucial prosodic aspects of text-to-speech systems but heavily rely on vast human annotations from audio or text, incurring significant manual effort and cost. Inherent variability in the speech domain, driven by phonetic factors, further complicates acquiring consistent, high-quality data. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have shown success in addressing data challenges in NLP by generating tailored synthetic data while reducing manual annotation needs. Motivated by this, we explore leveraging LLM to generate synthetic phrase break annotations, addressing the challenges of both manual annotation and speech-related tasks by comparing with traditional annotations and assessing effectiveness across multiple languages. Our findings suggest that LLM-based synthetic data generation effectively mitigates data challenges in phrase break prediction and highlights the potential of LLMs as a viable solution for the speech domain.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18044 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of traditional human annotations and our LLM-generated synthetic data for phrase break prediction. rely on manual human effort, building large-scale, high-quality phrase break datasets requires tremendous temporal and finan￾cial resources. The heavy reliance on human involvement drives up costs and complexity, a burden further compounded when developing phrase break prediction for multiple languages. Meanwh… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Prompt for generating phrase break annotation. transfer by switching the LLM’s persona from an English expert to a multilingual expert and adding English examples (the most commonly used language in LLM training), into the few-shot examples. Finally, in Section 6, we assess synthetic data’s prac￾tical value by training a smaller model [14] on LLM-generated annotations, then assess its performance to determine whethe… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Agreement (%) and Krippendorff ’s α across annota￾tion types by k. Shaded regions show standard deviation. prompt instructions, we first examined the pass rate in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Synthetic Data Generation for Phrase Break Prediction with Large Language Model

    Introduction Text-to-speech (TTS) is inherently a one-to-many mapping task, as one text input can yield multiple speech outputs de- pending on speaker and prosodic variations. This ambiguity often leads to challenges in generating natural and contextually appropriate speech. A key front-end module influencing this variability is phrase break prediction, w...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Related Work 2.1. Phrase Break Prediction Most deep learning-based phrase break models [15,16] demon- strate superior performance over traditional methods [17] by leveraging large-scale human annotations. These annotations are typically collected through either audio-oriented [2, 3] or text-oriented [4–6] approaches: the former relies on prosodic cues, wh...

    work page

  3. [3]

    #” and sentence bound- aries with “/

    Methodology In this section, we outline the procedure we followed when leveraging LLM (i.e., the cutting-edge GPT-4o mini [11]) to generate phrase break annotations. We assume access to only a minimal set of predefined phrase break labels. We employ a carefully designed system prompt (Figure 2) that assigns the LLM the persona of a linguistic expert, whil...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Experimental Setup Dataset We collect 1,000 English utterances from eight native speakers across news, community websites, and spoken corpora to capture varied speech patterns

    Exploratory Analysis: Comparison of Different Annotation Types 4.1. Experimental Setup Dataset We collect 1,000 English utterances from eight native speakers across news, community websites, and spoken corpora to capture varied speech patterns. These are manually anno- tated in two ways: using recordings (H-A) and by linguistic ex- perts relying on text (...

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Evaluation I: Annotation Quality 5.1. Experimental Setup Dataset Following the same procedure used for English data in Section 4, we collect 1,000 utterances each for French and Spanish, along with two corresponding human annotations. The same phrase break labels and domains apply across all settings. Model & Prompt Most of the model configurations from S...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Experimental Setup Dataset We use the same human and LLM annotations for each language (Sections 4 and 5)

    Evaluation II: Impact of Annotations on Model Performance 6.1. Experimental Setup Dataset We use the same human and LLM annotations for each language (Sections 4 and 5). Given real-world constraints, we set k to 16, and to 256 for resource-rich English. For cross- lingual few-shot (XL-FS) settings, we use two configurations: balanced En8 +X8 and English-o...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Conclusion In this paper, we present a comprehensive study on synthetic data generation for phrase break prediction, leveraging LLMs to address fundamental challenges in the speech domain arising from phonetic factors. Our results demonstrate that synthetic phrase break annotations effectively overcome the limitations of conventional human annotations, wh...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Improving prosody with linguistic and bert derived features in multi-speaker based mandarin chinese neural tts,

    Y . Xiao, L. He, H. Ming, and F. K. Soong, “Improving prosody with linguistic and bert derived features in multi-speaker based mandarin chinese neural tts,” in ICASSP 2020-2020 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2020, pp. 6704–6708

    work page 2020

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Phrase break prediction with bidirectional encoder representations in japanese text-to-speech synthesis,

    K. Futamata, B. Park, R. Yamamoto, and K. Tachibana, “Phrase break prediction with bidirectional encoder representations in japanese text-to-speech synthesis,” in Interspeech 2021. ISCA, 2021, p. 3126–3130

    2021

  2. [10]

    Cross-lingual transfer learning for phrase break prediction with multilingual lan- guage model,

    H. Lee, H.-W. Yoon, J.-H. Kim, and J.-M. Kim, “Cross-lingual transfer learning for phrase break prediction with multilingual lan- guage model,” in Interspeech 2023. ISCA, 2023, p. 611–615

    2023

  3. [11]

    Assigning phrase breaks from part-of- speech sequences,

    P. Taylor and A. W. Black, “Assigning phrase breaks from part-of- speech sequences,” Computer Speech & Language, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 99–117, 1998

    1998

  4. [12]

    Phrase break prediction for long-form reading tts: Exploiting text structure information,

    V . Klimkov, A. Nadolski, A. Moinet, B. Putrycz, R. Barra- Chicote, T. Merritt, and T. Drugman, “Phrase break prediction for long-form reading tts: Exploiting text structure information,” in Interspeech 2017, 2017, pp. 1064–1068

    2017

  5. [13]

    A grammar based approach to style specific phrase prediction,

    A. Parlikar and A. W. Black, “A grammar based approach to style specific phrase prediction,” in Twelfth Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association , 2011

    2011

  6. [14]

    Nn-based or- dinal regression for assessing fluency of esl speech,

    S. Mao, Z. Wu, J. Jiang, P. Liu, and F. K. Soong, “Nn-based or- dinal regression for assessing fluency of esl speech,” in ICASSP 2019-2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2019, pp. 7420–7424

    2019

  7. [15]

    Development of automatic speech recog- nition and synthesis technologies to support chinese learners of english: The cuhk experience,

    H. Meng, W.-K. Lo, A. M. Harrison, P. Lee, K.-H. Wong, W.-K. Leung, and F. Meng, “Development of automatic speech recog- nition and synthesis technologies to support chinese learners of english: The cuhk experience,” Proc. APSIPA ASC, pp. 811–820, 2010

    2010

  8. [16]

    Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models,

    D. Zhou, N. Sch ¨arli, L. Hou, J. Wei, N. Scales, X. Wang, D. Schu- urmans, C. Cui, O. Bousquet, Q. V . Le et al. , “Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models,” in The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Represen- tations, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,

    H. Touvron, T. Lavril, G. Izacard, X. Martinet, M.-A. Lachaux, T. Lacroix, B. Rozi `ere, N. Goyal, E. Hambro, F. Azhar et al. , “Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Gpt-4 technical report,

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Ale- man, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat et al., “Gpt-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Synthetic data generation with large language models for text classification: Potential and lim- itations,

    Z. Li, H. Zhu, Z. Lu, and M. Yin, “Synthetic data generation with large language models for text classification: Potential and lim- itations,” in Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , H. Bouamor, J. Pino, and K. Bali, Eds. Sin...

    2023

  12. [20]

    Ask lan- guage model to clean your noisy translation data,

    Q. Bolding, B. Liao, B. Denis, J. Luo, and C. Monz, “Ask lan- guage model to clean your noisy translation data,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 , H. Bouamor, J. Pino, and K. Bali, Eds. Association for Compu- tational Linguistics, Dec. ...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Minilm: Deep self-attention distillation for task-agnostic com- pression of pre-trained transformers,

    W. Wang, F. Wei, L. Dong, H. Bao, N. Yang, and M. Zhou, “Minilm: Deep self-attention distillation for task-agnostic com- pression of pre-trained transformers,” Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 5776–5788, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Prosodic break prediction with rnns,

    S. Pascual and A. Bonafonte, “Prosodic break prediction with rnns,” in Advances in Speech and Language Technologies for Iberian Languages: Third International Conference, Iber- SPEECH 2016, Lisbon, Portugal, November 23-25, 2016, Pro- ceedings 3. Springer, 2016, pp. 64–72

    2016

  15. [23]

    An investigation of recurrent neural network architectures using word embeddings for phrase break prediction

    A. Vadapalli and S. V . Gangashetty, “An investigation of recurrent neural network architectures using word embeddings for phrase break prediction.” in Interspeech, 2016, pp. 2308–2312

    2016

  16. [24]

    New statistical methods for phrase break prediction,

    H. Schmid and M. Atterer, “New statistical methods for phrase break prediction,” in COLING 2004: Proceedings of the 20th In- ternational Conference on Computational Linguistics , 2004, pp. 659–665

    2004

  17. [25]

    Want to reduce labeling cost? GPT-3 can help,

    S. Wang, Y . Liu, Y . Xu, C. Zhu, , and M. Zeng, “Want to reduce labeling cost? GPT-3 can help,” inFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021 , 2021, pp. 4195–4205

    2021

  18. [26]

    Is GPT-3 a good data annotator?

    B. Ding, C. Qin, L. Liu, Y . Chia, B. Li, S. Joty, and L. Bing, “Is GPT-3 a good data annotator?” in Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (V olume 1: Long Papers), 2023, pp. 11 173–11 195

    2023

  19. [27]

    Large language models are good multi-lingual learners: When llms meet cross- lingual prompts,

    T. Wang, Z. He, W.-Y . Yu, X. Fu, and X. Han, “Large language models are good multi-lingual learners: When llms meet cross- lingual prompts,” in Proceedings of the 31st International Con- ference on Computational Linguistics, 2025, pp. 4442–4456

    2025

  20. [28]

    Multi-stage large language model pipelines can outperform gpt- 4o in relevance assessment,

    J. A. Schnabel, J. R. Trippas, F. Scholer, and D. Hettiachchi, “Multi-stage large language model pipelines can outperform gpt- 4o in relevance assessment,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14296 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Quality matters: Evaluating synthetic data for tool-using llms,

    S. Iskander, S. Tolmach, O. Shapira, N. Cohen, and Z. Karnin, “Quality matters: Evaluating synthetic data for tool-using llms,” in Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2024, pp. 4958–4976

    2024

  22. [30]

    Autodetect: Towards a unified framework for au- tomated weakness detection in large language models,

    J. Cheng, Y . Lu, X. Gu, P. Ke, X. Liu, Y . Dong, H. Wang, J. Tang, and M. Huang, “Autodetect: Towards a unified framework for au- tomated weakness detection in large language models,” in Find- ings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, 2024, pp. 6786–6803

    2024

  23. [31]

    Beyond correlation: The impact of human uncertainty in measuring the effectiveness of automatic evaluation and llm-as- a-judge,

    A. Elangovan, J. Ko, L. Xu, M. Elyasi, L. Liu, S. Bodapati, and D. Roth, “Beyond correlation: The impact of human uncertainty in measuring the effectiveness of automatic evaluation and llm-as- a-judge,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03775, 2024

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Multiple sources of acoustic variation affect speech processing efficiency,

    A. M. Kapadia, J. A. Tin, and T. K. Perrachione, “Multiple sources of acoustic variation affect speech processing efficiency,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , vol. 153, no. 1, pp. 209–209, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    A comparative study of english tense and french tense

    Y . Liu, “A comparative study of english tense and french tense.” Theory & Practice in Language Studies , vol. 4, no. 11, 2014

    2014

  26. [34]

    Prosodic focus in en- glish vs. french: A scope account,

    J. Vander Klok, H. Goad, and M. Wagner, “Prosodic focus in en- glish vs. french: A scope account,” Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, vol. 3, no. 1, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Learning to realize prosodic prominence in l2 french and spanish,

    L. Colantoni, O. Marasco, J. Steele, and S. Sunara, “Learning to realize prosodic prominence in l2 french and spanish,” inSelected proceedings of the 2012 second language research forum: Build- ing bridges between disciplines , 2014, pp. 15–29

    2012

  28. [36]

    The same but different: Structural similarities and differences in mul- tilingual language modeling,

    R. Zhang, Q. Yu, M. Zang, C. Eickhoff, and E. Pavlick, “The same but different: Structural similarities and differences in mul- tilingual language modeling,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09223 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Common voice: A massively-multilingual speech corpus,

    R. Ardila, M. Branson, K. Davis, M. Kohler, J. Meyer, M. Hen- retty, R. Morais, L. Saunders, F. Tyers, and G. Weber, “Common voice: A massively-multilingual speech corpus,” in Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference . European Language Resources...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.