Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Boosting CTC-Based ASR Using LLM-Based Intermediate Loss Regularization

T0 review · 5 major / 5 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 Adding a causal language-model loss in a frozen LLaMA's embedding space at selected Conformer layers, the paper claims, cuts CTC speech recognition word error rates while keeping fast greedy decoding.

desk verdict LAIL is a sensible training-time trick with consistent WER gains, but the experiments never isolate whether LLaMA's linguistic knowledge causes them. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22846 v1 pith:NRC6MR4X submitted 2025-06-28 cs.CL cs.SDeess.AS

Duygu Altinok This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.SDeess.AS
keywords automaticspeechrecognitionCTCauxiliarylosslanguagemodelregularizationConformerLLaMAnon-autoregressivedecodingworderrorrate
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

The paper aims to close the accuracy gap between fast CTC-based speech recognition and slower attention-based models by borrowing linguistic knowledge from a frozen large language model. Connectionist temporal classification (CTC) trains an encoder to align speech to text without frame-level labels, and its greedy decoding is fast but treats output tokens as conditionally independent. The proposed Language-Aware Intermediate Loss (LAIL) attaches small connector layers to selected Conformer encoder blocks, projects those outputs into LLaMA's embedding space, and trains the encoder with a causal language-modeling loss on top of the usual CTC loss. Because the LLM is used only during training and decoding remains greedy CTC, the method promises the speed of non-autoregressive decoding with lower word error rates. On LibriSpeech, TEDLIUM2, and WSJ, the reported WERs improve, with the largest relative gain on WSJ and better results from larger LLMs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the LAIL auxiliary loss: at chosen Conformer block outputs, randomly initialized connector layers (five downsampling blocks plus a linear projection) map the encoder's hidden states into the frozen LLaMA embedding space, and a causal language-modeling loss $L_{\text{CLM},l} = -\sum_t \log P_{\text{LLM}}(y_t|y_{<t}, z_l)$ is computed against the transcript. The auxiliary losses are summed over selected layers and added to the CTC loss with weight $\alpha$, so the encoder is pulled to keep the information needed to predict text tokens one by one. At inference the connector layers and LLM are discarded, leaving the original Conformer-CTC decoder with greedy search.

What would settle it

A reader could settle the claim by training the same Conformer with connector layers and three extra epochs but no LAIL term; if word error rates do not return to baseline levels, the auxiliary loss is not the active ingredient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a Language-Aware Intermediate Loss (LAIL) regularizes a Conformer-CTC encoder into producing representations that are more linguistically coherent, without changing inference. Concretely, the total training objective is $L_{\text{total}} = L_{\text{CTC}} + \alpha L_{\text{LAIL}}$ (Eq. 15), where $L_{\text{LAIL}}$ is a weighted sum of causal language-modeling losses computed at selected encoder layers after connector layers map each layer's output into the LLM embedding space. The connector stack downsamples the temporal dimension by 32 so that one projected token corresponds to roughly 320 ms of audio. With LLaMA 3 8B frozen and $\alpha = 0.3$, the paper reports WER improvements on LibriSpeech test-clean (1.96 to 1.74), test-other (3.98 to 2.96), TEDLIUM2 (7.7 to 6.0), and WSJ (5.1 to 3.6), and interprets these as state-of-the-art results for CTC-based ASR.

Load-bearing premise

The result is interpreted as LLaMA's linguistic knowledge improving recognition, yet the Conformer-LAIL training also adds randomly initialized connector layers and three extra epochs that the baseline does not have, so that attribution is not isolated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If LAIL works as claimed, CTC models can get much of the linguistic modeling benefit of an LLM without paying any autoregressive decoding cost at inference.
  • The placement study implies that a few connector heads near the top of the encoder are enough: four heads at blocks 6, 12, 18, and 24 consistently beat one head at the final block.
  • The scaling result implies that larger frozen LLMs give monotonically better WER, at least across the 1B, 3B, and 8B LLaMA models tested.
  • The WSJ result suggests the auxiliary loss helps most on small, domain-specific corpora, where a large LLM's vocabulary and textual priors can compensate for limited training data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the LAIL training adds connector parameters and three extra epochs alongside the new loss, the causal role of LLaMA's linguistic knowledge is not yet isolated; a control that removes only the LAIL term would settle it.
  • A natural extension would be to swap LLaMA for a much smaller frozen text model or a fixed random projection; matching WER gains would suggest the benefit comes from the auxiliary objective's shape rather than from LLM-scale knowledge.
  • The same connector-plus-CLM-loss recipe could likely transfer to other CTC encoders and to streaming ASR, because the auxiliary loss is applied only during training and does not touch the decoding path.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Language-Aware Intermediate Loss (LAIL), an auxiliary training objective for CTC-based ASR. Connector layers attached to selected Conformer encoder blocks downsample the encoder output and project it into the embedding space of a frozen LLaMA model; a causal language-modeling loss is computed against the ground-truth transcript and added to the CTC loss as L_total = L_CTC + α L_LAIL (Eq. 15). Greedy CTC decoding is retained at inference. Experiments on LibriSpeech, TEDLIUM2, and WSJ report WER improvements of the proposed Conformer-LAIL over an internally fine-tuned Conformer baseline, along with ablations over connector placement and LLaMA model size.

Significance. If the contribution of LLaMA's linguistic knowledge were properly isolated, the method would be a practical and interesting way to inject linguistic information into CTC ASR without autoregressive decoding, and the public code release is a strength. The reported gains are consistent across four test sets, and the idea of using a frozen LLM as a training-time loss target is simple and appealing. However, the current experimental design does not isolate the proposed mechanism: the LAIL condition differs from the baseline in parameters, loss term, and training duration simultaneously, and the claimed state-of-the-art performance is not backed by external comparisons. The significance of the paper therefore rests on ablations and baselines that are not yet present.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.0.1, Section 4.0.3, Table 1] The central attribution claim is confounded. Conformer-LAIL differs from Conformer-tuned in at least three simultaneous ways: (1) it adds randomly initialized connector layers with a 32x downsampling stack (Section 3.1.3), (2) it adds the auxiliary CLM loss with α=0.3, and (3) it is trained for three additional epochs per dataset; on LibriSpeech, Conformer-tuned is the off-the-shelf 960h checkpoint while Conformer-LAIL starts from that checkpoint and receives further updates. The reported WER gains in Table 1 therefore cannot be attributed specifically to LLaMA's linguistic knowledge. The paper should include at least an α=0 control with the connector stack and the same number of training epochs, and ideally a control that uses a frozen random projection or a non-LLM auxiliary target, before claiming that LLaMA's linguistic prior drives the improvement.
  2. [Abstract, Section 5] The claim of 'state-of-the-art performance for CTC-based ASR' is not supported by the evidence presented. Table 1 compares Conformer-LAIL only against the internal Conformer-tuned baseline; no external CTC-based ASR systems are cited or compared on the same test sets, and no published WER numbers for methods such as Intermediate CTC, Self-Conditioned CTC, or BERT-CTC are given. Either add such comparisons or remove the state-of-the-art claim.
  3. [Section 4.0.2, Section 5.1, Table 2] The connector-count ablation is internally inconsistent. Section 4.0.2 defines '5 heads' as placed after blocks 4, 8, 16, 20, and 24, which is exactly five layers. However, Table 2 and Section 5.1 list '4,8,12,16,20,24' as the '5 heads' configuration, which contains six layers. This makes the effect of connector count ambiguous and weakens the conclusion that more connectors provide finer-grained alignment.
  4. [Section 5, Tables 1-3] No statistical significance assessment is reported. All WER numbers appear to be from single runs, with no error bars, confidence intervals, or repeated-seed results. Given the small absolute differences on some test sets (e.g., 1.96 to 1.74 on LibriSpeech test-clean), the word 'significant' in the abstract is not justified without variance information or significance testing.
  5. [Section 4.0.3, Section 5] The hyperparameter selection for α is not documented. The text states that α was determined by a search over [0.0, 1.0] and that α=0.3 was used, but does not report the values tried, whether the selected value varied by dataset, or the sensitivity of the Table 1 results to α. Because Eq. (15) makes α a central component of the training objective, this omission limits reproducibility.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, Section 1] The phrase 'an Language-Aware Intermediate Loss' should be 'a Language-Aware Intermediate Loss'.
  2. [Section 5] The percentages in Section 5 are labeled inconsistently: 'over 10% absolute' is followed by '25%' and '22%' without specifying relative versus absolute; these should be stated as relative WER reductions and computed consistently.
  3. [Equation (14)] The per-layer weights λ_l are introduced but no values are reported in the experiments; please state explicitly whether all λ_l are set to 1 or how they were chosen.
  4. [Section 3.1.3] The connector stack is described only as 'five down-sampling blocks' with no kernel sizes, strides, or normalization details; since the code is public, the paper should at least summarize these choices for reproducibility.
  5. [Table 3] The LLaMA model versions are ambiguous: the paper says 'LLaMA 3' for the 8B model but does not specify whether the 1B and 3B models are from the same generation; this should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity detected: LAIL is an auxiliary training objective computed against an externally pretrained frozen LLaMA model, and the WER results are empirical measurements rather than quantities derived from the method's own definitions.

full rationale

This paper's central claim is that adding a causal language-model loss, computed by mapping Conformer intermediate representations into a frozen LLaMA embedding space, improves CTC-based ASR WER. The derivation chain is entirely empirical: Eq. 13 defines the auxiliary loss L_CLM as a standard autoregressive prediction loss over ground-truth transcript tokens conditioned on projected encoder outputs, Eq. 14 aggregates it over selected layers, and Eq. 15 combines it with the CTC loss. The reported WER numbers in Tables 1-3 are measurements on standard public test sets, not consequences of a fitted quantity or of the loss definition itself. The hyperparameter alpha is tuned over [0.0, 1.0], but it is a training-weight hyperparameter, not an input whose value is later reported as a 'prediction,' so this does not constitute circularity. The paper also does not rely on self-citations as load-bearing evidence: its motivation cites the external prior work of Lee and Watanabe on Intermediate CTC, and the frozen LLaMA model is an externally pretrained artifact. A legitimate experimental weakness is that the Conformer-LAIL condition differs from the Conformer-tuned baseline by connector parameters, an auxiliary loss, and three additional epochs of training, with no ablation isolating the LLM contribution. That is an attribution confound and a threat to the mechanistic interpretation, but it is not circular reasoning: no equation or citation makes the claimed improvement equal to an input by construction. Accordingly, no self-definitional step, fitted-input-called-prediction step, or self-citation chain is present, and the circularity score is 0.

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

The contribution is a training recipe rather than a derivation, so the ledger is small: two loss weights (α tuned, λ_l unreported), a hand-chosen 32x downsampling connector design, and the domain assumption that a frozen LLM can consume audio-derived embeddings as conditioning context. The attribution of gains to the LLM is the least supported item in the ledger, since no non-LLM control is run.

free parameters (3)
  • α (LAIL loss weight) = 0.3
    Global weight in Eq. (15); selected by hyperparameter search over [0.0, 1.0] on undisclosed validation protocol.
  • Per-layer loss weights λ_l = not reported
    Eq. (14) sums λ_l L_CLM,l over selected layers, but the values of λ_l are never given; presumably 1.0 but unstated.
  • Temporal downsampling factor of connector stack = 32
    Connector reduces temporal resolution by 32, yielding one audio token per 320 ms; this architectural choice, plus the five-block design, is presented without ablation or design rationale.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The CTC conditional-independence factorization P(a|x) = Π_t P(a[t]|x[t]) (Eq. 2) is used as the acoustic training objective.
    Standard CTC assumption; defines the baseline training signal.
  • domain assumption A frozen LLaMA model can be conditioned on 32x-downsampled audio-derived embeddings z_l and yield a meaningful causal language-model loss over transcript tokens (Eq. 13).
    The whole LAIL mechanism depends on the LLM interpreting z_l as a useful context; no alignment analysis or warm-start is provided.
  • domain assumption Gradients from the frozen-LLM CLM loss at intermediate layers improve the Conformer encoder's representations for CTC decoding without hurting acoustic alignment.
    This transfer mechanism is the claimed benefit, but no ablation (e.g., random projection or fixed non-LLM target) isolates it.
  • domain assumption The pretrained wav2vec2-conformer-rope-large-960h-ft checkpoint and LLaMA models are reliable upstream resources whose quality is taken as given.
    The method uses them as fixed starting points; their properties enter all results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Boosting CTC-Based ASR Using LLM-Based Intermediate Loss Regularization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NRC6MR4X

@misc{pith2026250622846,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Boosting CTC-Based ASR Using LLM-Based Intermediate Loss Regularization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NRC6MR4X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22846}
}
read the original abstract

End-to-end (E2E) automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems have revolutionized the field by integrating all components into a single neural network, with attention-based encoder-decoder models achieving state-of-the-art performance. However, their autoregressive decoding process limits inference speed, making them unsuitable for real-time applications. In contrast, CTC-based models offer faster, non-autoregressive decoding but struggle to model linguistic dependencies effectively. Addressing this challenge, we propose a novel auxiliary loss framework called Language-Aware Intermediate Loss (LAIL) to enhance CTC-based ASR using the linguistic knowledge of large language models (LLMs). By attaching connector layers to intermediate encoder layers, LAIL maps outputs to the embedding space of an LLM and computes a causal language modeling loss during training. This approach enhances linguistic modeling while preserving the computational efficiency of CTC decoding. Using the Conformer architecture and various LLaMA models, we demonstrate significant improvements in Word Error Rate (WER) on the LibriSpeech, TEDLIUM2, and WSJ corpora, achieving state-of-the-art performance for CTC-based ASR with minimal computational overhead.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22846 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall architecture of the proposed model. Auxiliary losses (LAIL) are attached after selected Conformer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. TVTA: Trajectory-Aware Viseme-Guided Temporal Aggregation for Event-Based Lip Reading

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    Trajectory-aware local temporal modeling before spatial aggregation plus CTC viseme supervision and EMA consistency lifts DVS-Lip word accuracy to 77.49%.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Jimmy Lei Ba, Jamie Ryan Kiros, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2016. http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.06450 Layer normalization . Cite arxiv:1607.06450

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Alexei Baevski, Yuhao Zhou, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and Michael Auli. 2020. wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech representations. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 12449--12460

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Dzmitry Bahdanau, Jan Chorowski, Dmitriy Serdyuk, Philémon Brakel, and Yoshua Bengio. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.2016.7472618 End-to-end attention-based large vocabulary speech recognition . In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 4945--4949

    work page arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin...

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Nanxin Chen, Shinji Watanabe, Jesús Villalba, Piotr Żelasko, and Najim Dehak. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1109/LSP.2020.3044547 Non-autoregressive transformer for speech recognition . IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 28:121--125

    work page arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Chi, Julian Salazar, and Katrin Kirchhoff

    Ethan A. Chi, Julian Salazar, and Katrin Kirchhoff. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.154 Align-refine: Non-autoregressive speech recognition via iterative realignment . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1920--1927, Online...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.154 2021

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Sainath, Yonghui Wu, Rohit Prabhavalkar, Patrick Nguyen, Zhifeng Chen, Anjuli Kannan, Ron J

    Chung-Cheng Chiu, Tara N. Sainath, Yonghui Wu, Rohit Prabhavalkar, Patrick Nguyen, Zhifeng Chen, Anjuli Kannan, Ron J. Weiss, Kanishka Rao, Ekaterina Gonina, Navdeep Jaitly, Bo Li, Jan Chorowski, and Michiel Bacchiani. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.2018.8462105 State-of...

    2018

  2. [10]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1423 BERT : Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Associat...

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    Linhao Dong, Shuang Xu, and Bo Xu. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.2018.8462506 Speech-transformer: A no-recurrence sequence-to-sequence model for speech recognition . In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5884--5888

    2018

  4. [12]

    Hayato Futami, Hirofumi Inaguma, Masato Mimura, Shinsuke Sakai, and Tatsuya Kawahara. 2022. https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.02030 Distilling the knowledge of bert for ctc-based asr . Preprint, arXiv:2209.02030

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Alex Graves, Santiago Fern\' a ndez, Faustino Gomez, and J\" u rgen Schmidhuber. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1145/1143844.1143891 Connectionist temporal classification: labelling unsegmented sequence data with recurrent neural networks . In Proceedings of the 23rd International C...

    2006

  6. [14]

    Alex Graves and Navdeep Jaitly. 2014. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v32/graves14.html Towards end-to-end speech recognition with recurrent neural networks . In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 32 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Re...

    2014

  7. [15]

    Anmol Gulati, James Qin, Chung-Cheng Chiu, Niki Parmar, Yu Zhang, Jiahui Yu, Wei Han, Shibo Wang, Zhengdong Zhang, Yonghui Wu, and Ruoming Pang. 2020. https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2020-3015 Conformer: Convolution-augmented transformer for speech recognition . In Proc. ...

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2016.90 Deep residual learning for image recognition . In 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 770--778

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    Yosuke Higuchi, Nanxin Chen, Yuya Fujita, Hirofumi Inaguma, Tatsuya Komatsu, Jaesong Lee, Jumon Nozaki, Tianzi Wang, and Shinji Watanabe. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1109/ASRU51503.2021.9688157 A comparative study on non-autoregressive modelings for speech-to-text generation . In...

    2021

  10. [18]

    Yosuke Higuchi, Keita Karube, Tetsuji Ogawa, and Tetsunori Kobayashi. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP43922.2022.9746580 Hierarchical conditional end-to-end asr with ctc and multi-granular subword units . In ICASSP 2022 - 2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Sp...

    2022

  11. [19]

    Yosuke Higuchi, Shinji Watanabe, Nanxin Chen, Takaaki Ogawa, and Tetsuji Kobayashi. 2020. https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2020-2404 Mask ctc: Non-autoregressive end-to-end asr with ctc and mask predict . In Proc. Interspeech 2020, pages 3655--3659

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    Shigeki Karita, Nelson Enrique Yalta Soplin, Shinji Watanabe, Marc Delcroix, Akinori Ogawa, and Tomohiro Nakatani. 2019. https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2019-1938 Improving transformer-based end-to-end speech recognition with connectionist temporal classification and lang...

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    Mahoney, and Kurt Keutzer

    Sehoon Kim, Amir Gholami, Albert Shaw, Nicholas Lee, Karttikeya Mangalam, Jitendra Malik, Michael W. Mahoney, and Kurt Keutzer. 2022. Squeezeformer: an efficient transformer for automatic speech recognition. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Informa...

    2022

  14. [22]

    Samuel Kriman, Stanislav Beliaev, Boris Ginsburg, Jocelyn Huang, Oleksii Kuchaiev, Vitaly Lavrukhin, Ryan Leary, Jason Li, and Yang Zhang. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP40776.2020.9053889 Quartznet: Deep automatic speech recognition with 1d time-channel separable convolu...

    2020

  15. [23]

    Jaesong Lee and Shinji Watanabe. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP39728.2021.9414594 Intermediate loss regularization for ctc-based speech recognition . In ICASSP 2021 - 2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 6224--6228

    2021

  16. [24]

    Jun Nozaki and Takashi Komatsu. 2021. https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2021-911 Relaxing the conditional independence assumption of ctc-based asr by conditioning on intermediate predictions . In Proc. Interspeech 2021, pages 3735--3739

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    OpenAI et al. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774 Gpt-4 technical report . Preprint, arXiv:2303.08774

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Vassil Panayotov, Guoguo Chen, Daniel Povey, and Sanjeev Khudanpur. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.2015.7178964 Librispeech: An asr corpus based on public domain audio books . In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), page...

    2015

  19. [27]

    Paul and Janet M

    Douglas B. Paul and Janet M. Baker. 1992. https://aclanthology.org/H92-1073/ The design for the W all S treet J ournal-based CSR corpus . In Speech and Natural Language: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Harriman, New York, F ebruary 23-26, 1992

    1992

  20. [28]

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Tao Xu, Greg Brockman, Christine McLeavey, and Ilya Sutskever. 2022. https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04356 Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision . Preprint, arXiv:2212.04356

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Dima Rekesh, Nithin Rao Koluguri, Samuel Kriman, Somshubra Majumdar, Vahid Noroozi, He Huang, Oleksii Hrinchuk, Krishna Puvvada, Ankur Kumar, Jagadeesh Balam, and Boris Ginsburg. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/ASRU57964.2023.10389701 Fast conformer with linearly scalable attent...

    2023

  22. [30]

    Anthony Rousseau, Paul Del \'e glise, and Yannick Est \`e ve. 2012. https://aclanthology.org/L12-1405/ TED - LIUM : an automatic speech recognition dedicated corpus . In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation ( LREC `12) , pages...

    2012

  23. [31]

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.13971 Llama:...

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc

    2017

  25. [33]

    Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mari...

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Guanrou Yang, Ziyang Ma, Zhifu Gao, Shiliang Zhang, and Xie Chen. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1109/SLT61566.2024.10832154 Ctc-assisted llm-based contextual asr . In 2024 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT), pages 126--131

    2024

  27. [35]

    Yuting Yang, Yuke Li, and Binbin Du. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP49357.2023.10094820 Improving ctc-based asr models with gated interlayer collaboration . In ICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1--5

    2023

Pith tools

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