Thibault Bañeras Roux, Jane Wottawa, Mickael Rouvier, Teva Merlin, Richard Dufour
Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
Conventionally, Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) systems are evaluated on their ability to correctly recognize each word contained in a speech signal. In this context, the word error rate (WER) metric is the reference for evaluating speech transcripts. Several studies have shown that this measure is too limited to correctly evaluate an ASR system, which has led to the proposal of other variants of metrics (weighted ...
WER, BERTscore, semantic distance, etc.). However, they remain system-oriented, even when transcripts are intended for humans. In this paper, we firstly present Human Assessed Transcription Side-by-side (HATS), an original French manually annotated data set in terms of human perception of transcription errors produced by various ASR systems. 143 humans were asked to choose the best automatic transcription out of two hypotheses. We investigated the relationship between human preferences and various ASR evaluation metrics, including lexical and embedding-based ones, the latter being those that correlate supposedly the most with human perception.
No concrete benchmark grounding is available yet. Treat the page as context or an implementation starting point only.
Conventionally, Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) systems are evaluated on their ability to correctly recognize each word contained in a speech signal.
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 65/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
Matched via arXiv identifier search · Community adoption signal (514 stars)
Risk flags
Matched via arXiv identifier search · Partial overlap with paper title keywords
Risk flags
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
Hardware requirements
No verified implementation available
No benchmark numbers could be verified. You will not be able to validate reproduction correctness against published numbers.
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Models
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
1
Citations
24
References
Tasks
Computer science, Word error rate, Perception, Transcription (linguistics), Set (abstract data type), Metric (unit), Word (group theory)
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Speech recognition, Natural language processing, Artificial intelligence
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.