The MMS output contains 613 unconverted or unmapped characters, showing that part of the residual error reflects scoring-pipeline limits rather than recognition alone, and the fixed reference and segment-level results are released, subject to source-corpus sharing terms, to support independent checking.
Abstract
Evaluating speech recognition for a Kurdish variety written in a Latin field orthography, using a model that outputs Arabic script, creates a measurement problem before a modelling one: direct scoring treats writing-system differences as recognition errors. Jointly normalizing reference and hypothesis avoids this, but also changes reference tokenization, mixing agreement gains with a change in the scoring denominator. I evaluate MMS-1B-all with the Central Kurdish (ckb) adapter, used as released without adaptation, on 1,722 Garrusi questionnaire segments from five speakers (9,763 reference word tokens; 117.9 minutes). I use a common-reference design: the reference is folded once and fixed at 9,763 tokens, while only the hypothesis representation varies. The raw Arabic-script hypothesis scores 111.70% WER and 100.92% CER, with zero exact word matches. Latin transliteration gives 102.36% WER and 57.89% CER; folding it into the reference's reduced orthography gives 97.85% and 51.20%. Thus RAW-to-FOLDED reduces measured WER by 13.85 points and CER by 49.72 points; folding alone accounts for 4.51 and 6.69 points. Substantial error remains: 14.53% of reference tokens are exact matches, edits are substitution-dominated, and per-segment WER is higher for shorter segments. A Southern Kurdish fine-tuned system (aranemini/southern-kurdish-asr), scored under the same design, performs worse on every speaker (1,703 segments), with 109.56% WER and 55.85% CER. However, 12,330 output characters fall outside the folding table, so these rates must be recomputed against the corrected fixed reference. The MMS output also contains 613 unconverted or unmapped characters, showing that part of the residual error reflects scoring-pipeline limits rather than recognition alone. I will release the fixed reference and segment-level results, subject to source-corpus sharing terms, to support independent checking.
This work performs experiments on VoxPopuli and The Polish Parliamentary speech datasets and estimates word error rate (WER) differences for different text normalization approaches, showing that the difference due to the lack of number normalization in WER may be substantial.
A deterministic, LLM-free Quranic recitation validator using a four-layer verse-matching search (exact, morphological, relaxed, fuzzy) and word-error-rate-graded feedback across five severity tiers is built.
The findings support a diagnostic rather than leaderboard interpretation: the apparent benefit of Arabic XTTS adaptation depends materially on the evaluation metric, checkpoint, and evaluator.
This study evaluated the Microsoft Azure Pronunciation Assessment (PA) tool for modern standard Arabic using the KSU Arabic Speech Database and showed that a simple weighted combination closely matched the Pronunciation scores.
J. Zainaddin, Mohammad Amro· Journal of Undergraduate Res...· 0 citations
A linguistically curated bilingual dataset comprising 13,846 utterances distributed across synthetic and literature-derived subsets, with OOV rates reaching up to 100%, and a diagnostic evaluation framework that partitions recognition performance into Biased Word Error Rate (B-WER), which targets domain-specific jargon...
Emily Haubert Klering, E. Cortes, Т. И. Черненко et al.· International Conference on...· 0 citations
COMET reports translation quality as a single number, and that number is routinely compared across target languages written in different scripts. Such a comparison assumes Script Invariance: the score should not depend on the writing system that carries the target. We test it on IndicMT Eval by re-encoding the target i...
G. L. John Salvin, Swapnil Hingmire· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.