The paper introduces a method for measuring accent differences that balances interpretability and practicality. It proposes using articulatory representations obtained via articulatory inversion as an interpretable basis for accent comparison, while employing optimal transport to compare accents across any type of recording. This approach aims to overcome the limitations of traditional phonetic analyses and embedding‑based methods, which are either time‑consuming or non‑interpretable.
By Charles McGhee, Mark J. F. Gales, Kate M. Knill
arXiv:2606. 17826v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automatic speech recognition (ASR) in non-English clinical settings is challenged by multiscript variability, where the same term may appear in multiple valid orthographic forms.
By Jean Seo, Minkyu Kim, Jeonguk Lee, Jisoo Jung, Wooseok Han, Eunho Yang
Neural TTS systems can sound natural across languages, but naturalness does not guarantee the preservation of sound contrasts that distinguish words from their grammatical forms. Standard metrics like MOS do not test for this.
arXiv:2605. 20712v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Automatic speech recognition replaces typing only when correction costs less than manual entry - a threshold determined by error types, not counts: fixing a misrecognized domain term costs far more than inserting a comma.
By Kavya Manohar, Arghya Bhattacharya, Kush Juvekar, Kumarmanas Nethil
arXiv:2607. 01965v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Neural TTS systems can sound natural across languages, but naturalness does not guarantee the preservation of sound contrasts that distinguish words from their grammatical forms.
By Sneha Ray Barman, Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Shakuntala Mahanta
The paper evaluates a multilingual ASR model (MMS‑1B‑all) on a Garrusi Kurdish dataset using a common‑reference staged normalization approach. By normalizing both reference and hypothesis, the authors show that raw Arabic‑script hypotheses yield a 111.70 % WER, which drops to 97.85 % after folding into a reduced orthography, highlighting the impact of orthographic differences on error measurement. A Southern Kurdish fine‑tuned system performs worse, and residual errors are partly due to scoring‑pipeline limitations rather than recognition failures.
By Hiwa Asadpour