Advancing Automated Speaking Assessment Leveraging Multifaceted Relevance and Grammar Information
Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
arXiv:2610.24809v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Speech recognition in real time in far-field conversational settings still incurs significant errors. Identifying potential error spans during stre...
arXiv:2608.30475v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We present an overview of the ImageEval 2026 shared task on culturally grounded Arabic multimodal evaluation. It includes two tasks: (i) AynVQA, cove...
arXiv:2609.05806v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Emotion Recognition in Conversations (ERC) aims to identify speakers' emotions in multi-turn dialogue. Accurate emotion recognition can support a wide...
The paper introduces SITAR, a situational distortion metric for evaluating automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems. SITAR aggregates situational severity and cumulative extent into a unified score using a bounded recursive formulation, and is implemented as a lightweight BERT-family regressor that requires minimal runtime cost. The authors validate SITAR through extrinsic and intrinsic protocols, showing it tracks capability scaling and provides diagnostic utility across diverse datasets and models.
arXiv:2611.05637v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Speech transcription errors can be difficult to recognize when competing word hypotheses are unfamiliar or visually similar. We describe an interface t...
Large Language Models (LLMs) are being tested as a cost‑effective alternative to human judgment for evaluating machine translation (MT). This study compares LLM agreement with human annotators on two MT quality schemes—Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) and Error Span Annotation (ESA)—across 70 language pairs and public WMT23/25 data. Results show that while LLMs sometimes match or exceed human agreement, performance varies widely by scheme, language, and domain, and remains unreliable in many settings. The work also identifies specific challenges for both humans (e.g., fine‑grained MQM, low‑resource languages) and LLMs (e.g., minor errors, wrong language variants, span annotation).