Phoebe Parsons
2023
A character-based analysis of impacts of dialects on end-to-end Norwegian ASR
Phoebe Parsons
|
Knut Kvale
|
Torbjørn Svendsen
|
Giampiero Salvi
Proceedings of the 24th Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics (NoDaLiDa)
We present a method for analyzing character errors for use with character-based, end-to-end ASR systems, as used herein for investigating dialectal speech. As end-to-end systems are able to produce novel spellings, there exists a possibility that the spelling variants produced by these systems can capture phonological information beyond the intended target word. We therefore first introduce a way of guaranteeing that similar words and characters are paired during alignment, thus ensuring that any resulting analysis of character errors is founded on sound substitutions. Then, from such a careful character alignment, we find trends in system-generated spellings that align with known phonological features of Norwegian dialects, in particular, “r” and “l” confusability and voiceless stop lenition. Through this analysis, we demonstrate that cues from acoustic dialectal features can influence the output of an end-to-end ASR systems.
Improving Generalization of Norwegian ASR with Limited Linguistic Resources
Per Erik Solberg
|
Pablo Ortiz
|
Phoebe Parsons
|
Torbjørn Svendsen
|
Giampiero Salvi
Proceedings of the 24th Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics (NoDaLiDa)
With large amounts of training data, it is possible to train ASR models that generalize well across speakers and domains. But how do you train robust models when there is a limited amount of available training data? In the experiments reported here, we fine-tuned a pre-trained wav2vec2 ASR model on two transcribed, Norwegian speech datasets, one with parliamentary speech and one with radio recordings, as well as on combinations of the two datasets. We subsequently tested these models on different test sets with planned and unplanned speech and with speakers of various dialects. Our results show that models trained on combinations of the two datasets generalize better to new data than the single-dataset models, even when the length of the training data is the same. Our lexical analysis sheds light on the type of mistakes made by the models and on the importance of consistent standardization when training combined models of this kind.
Search