arXiv Machine Learning By Eichi Uehara

Interpretable, Fairly Evaluated Automated L2 Speaking Assessment that Beats the Single-Human Ceiling and Why Pause Encoding Does Not Change LLM Fluency Scores

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

The paper presents an interpretable, fair, and accurately benchmarked automated system for assessing second‑language English speaking. Using a hybrid of feature‑based speech‑timing metrics and a large language model (LLM) fluency judgment, the system achieves a Spearman correlation of 0.818 with the ICNALE Global Rating Archive, outperforming 81 % of trained human raters. A controlled study shows that encoding pauses into the LLM prompt does not meaningfully affect fluency scores, indicating that the system’s fluency signal derives from measurable speech‑timing features.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 20

Hear2Act: Benchmarking When Prosody Should Change What an Assistant Does

Prosodic cues can convey task-relevant information that alters the trajectory and outcome of a task-oriented dialogue, even when the words themselves remain unchanged. Yet existing benchmarks typically evaluate prosodic perception, response appropriateness, and task-oriented dialogue in isolation, making it difficult to test whether prosodic evidence changes downstream decisions.

arXiv AI
Jul 31

Voice Memory for Agentic Speech Recognition

arXiv:2607. 26410v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We present Voice Memory, a inference-only scheme for agentic speech recognition: at stream time, a frozen corrector reads a single per-domain memory.

By Chao-Han Huck Yang, Zih-Ching Chen, Piotr Zelasko, Zhehuai Chen, Jagadeesh Balam, Boris Ginsburg
arXiv AI
Jul 17

RW-Voice-EQ Bench: A Real World Benchmark for Evaluating Voice AI Systems

arXiv:2607. 14846v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Current voice AI benchmarks typically evaluate isolated capabilities such as speech intelligibility, word error rate, or text-based dialogue quality, but they rarely test whether systems harness the acoustic information that distinguishes spoken language from its textual representation.

By David Ayllon, Alice Baird, Jeffrey Brooks, Franc Camps-Febrer, Jakub Piotr C{\l}apa, Theo Lebryk, Jens Madsen, Olya Ossipova, Sharath Rao, Hoon Shin, Tigran Soghbatyan, Georg Streich, Rashish Tandon, Panagiotis Tzirakis