A Benchmark of French ASR Systems Based on Error Severity

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.10879v1
• Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2025 21:07:18 GMT
• Title: A Benchmark of French ASR Systems Based on Error Severity
• Authors: Antoine Tholly, Jane Wottawa, Mickael Rouvier, Richard Dufour,
• Abstract summary: A new evaluation is proposed that categorizes errors into four levels of severity. This metric is applied to a benchmark of 10 state-of-the-art ASR systems on French language.
• Score: 6.657432034629865
• License:
• Abstract: Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) transcription errors are commonly assessed using metrics that compare them with a reference transcription, such as Word Error Rate (WER), which measures spelling deviations from the reference, or semantic score-based metrics. However, these approaches often overlook what is understandable to humans when interpreting transcription errors. To address this limitation, a new evaluation is proposed that categorizes errors into four levels of severity, further divided into subtypes, based on objective linguistic criteria, contextual patterns, and the use of content words as the unit of analysis. This metric is applied to a benchmark of 10 state-of-the-art ASR systems on French language, encompassing both HMM-based and end-to-end models. Our findings reveal the strengths and weaknesses of each system, identifying those that provide the most comfortable reading experience for users.

Related papers

• Style-agnostic evaluation of ASR using multiple reference transcripts [0.3066137405373616]
  We attempt to mitigate some of these differences by performing style-agnostic evaluation of ASR systems. We find that existing WER reports are likely significantly over-estimating the number of contentful errors made by state-of-the-art ASR systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-10T21:47:15Z)
• HICEScore: A Hierarchical Metric for Image Captioning Evaluation [10.88292081473071]
  We propose a novel reference-free metric for image captioning evaluation, dubbed Hierarchical Image Captioning Evaluation Score (HICE-S) By detecting local visual regions and textual phrases, HICE-S builds an interpretable hierarchical scoring mechanism. Our proposed metric achieves the SOTA performance on several benchmarks, outperforming existing reference-free metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-26T08:24:30Z)
• Machine Translation Meta Evaluation through Translation Accuracy Challenge Sets [92.38654521870444]
  We introduce ACES, a contrastive challenge set spanning 146 language pairs. This dataset aims to discover whether metrics can identify 68 translation accuracy errors. We conduct a large-scale study by benchmarking ACES on 50 metrics submitted to the WMT 2022 and 2023 metrics shared tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-29T17:17:42Z)
• Using Natural Language Explanations to Rescale Human Judgments [81.66697572357477]
  We propose a method to rescale ordinal annotations and explanations using large language models (LLMs) We feed annotators' Likert ratings and corresponding explanations into an LLM and prompt it to produce a numeric score anchored in a scoring rubric. Our method rescales the raw judgments without impacting agreement and brings the scores closer to human judgments grounded in the same scoring rubric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:19:14Z)
• End-to-End Page-Level Assessment of Handwritten Text Recognition [69.55992406968495]
  HTR systems increasingly face the end-to-end page-level transcription of a document. Standard metrics do not take into account the inconsistencies that might appear. We propose a two-fold evaluation, where the transcription accuracy and the RO goodness are considered separately.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-14T15:43:07Z)
• Re-Examining System-Level Correlations of Automatic Summarization Evaluation Metrics [64.81682222169113]
  How reliably an automatic summarization evaluation metric replicates human judgments of summary quality is quantified by system-level correlations. We identify two ways in which the definition of the system-level correlation is inconsistent with how metrics are used to evaluate systems in practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-21T15:52:14Z)
• Understanding Factuality in Abstractive Summarization with FRANK: A Benchmark for Factuality Metrics [17.677637487977208]
  Modern summarization models generate highly fluent but often factually unreliable outputs. Due to the lack of common benchmarks, metrics attempting to measure the factuality of automatically generated summaries cannot be compared. We devise a typology of factual errors and use it to collect human annotations of generated summaries from state-of-the-art summarization systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-27T17:28:07Z)
• Tangled up in BLEU: Reevaluating the Evaluation of Automatic Machine Translation Evaluation Metrics [64.88815792555451]
  We show that current methods for judging metrics are highly sensitive to the translations used for assessment. We develop a method for thresholding performance improvement under an automatic metric against human judgements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-11T09:12:53Z)
• On the Limitations of Cross-lingual Encoders as Exposed by Reference-Free Machine Translation Evaluation [55.02832094101173]
  Evaluation of cross-lingual encoders is usually performed either via zero-shot cross-lingual transfer in supervised downstream tasks or via unsupervised cross-lingual similarity. This paper concerns ourselves with reference-free machine translation (MT) evaluation where we directly compare source texts to (sometimes low-quality) system translations. We systematically investigate a range of metrics based on state-of-the-art cross-lingual semantic representations obtained with pretrained M-BERT and LASER. We find that they perform poorly as semantic encoders for reference-free MT evaluation and identify their two key limitations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-03T22:10:23Z)
• A Human Evaluation of AMR-to-English Generation Systems [13.10463139842285]
  We present the results of a new human evaluation which collects fluency and adequacy scores, as well as categorization of error types. We discuss the relative quality of these systems and how our results compare to those of automatic metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-14T21:41:30Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.