Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

From Monolingual to Multilingual: Evaluating Mamba for ASR in South African Languages

Jesujoba O. Alabi, Julian Herreilers, Badr M. Abdullah, Dietrich Klakow

Published

Jul 1, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

35% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Jul 1, 2026

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Detected
Eval setup described
Usefulness for eval research
0/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Abstract

Recent advances in automatic speech recognition (ASR) have explored different sequence models, including Conformer-based models and newer state space models such as Mamba. Although prior work has evaluated these architectures in multiple languages, their effectiveness in African languages remains underexplored. In this work, we evaluate Mamba for ASR on seven South African languages. In monolingual experiments, each model is trained on 50 hours of speech per language, and we compare Mamba to a Conformer baseline of similar parameter scale. Mamba achieves similar recognition accuracy to Conformer while using fewer computational resources and training faster. We further evaluate generalization in this setting and find that both models struggle to generalize to speech that is much longer than what they were trained on. We then study multilingual ASR using Mamba models, where the baseline is pooling all languages together. On top of this, we tested three extensions: training with language-family information by adding both language and language-family embeddings as biases to the downsampled acoustic representations, and multitask learning with a CTC ASR objective and a language identification (LID) head. We find that multilingual training consistently improves performance over monolingual training. However, adding explicit language information does not improve in-domain performance but does improve cross-corpus robustness. We conducted ablation studies in low-resource multilingual settings using 5-hour and 10-hour per-language training data, where we observed gains from using language embeddings and further demonstrated that removing or altering them hurt model performance. Lastly, we analysed these embeddings and find that they do not capture linguistic similarity in a typological sense, but instead act as task-specific control vectors.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Recent advances in automatic speech recognition (ASR) have explored different sequence models, including Conformer-based models and newer state space models such as Mamba."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Recent advances in automatic speech recognition (ASR) have explored different sequence models, including Conformer-based models and newer state space models such as Mamba."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Recent advances in automatic speech recognition (ASR) have explored different sequence models, including Conformer-based models and newer state space models such as Mamba."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Recent advances in automatic speech recognition (ASR) have explored different sequence models, including Conformer-based models and newer state space models such as Mamba."

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy, Jailbreak success rate

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Mamba achieves similar recognition accuracy to Conformer while using fewer computational resources and training faster."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

accuracyjailbreak success rate
Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Not reported
Expertise required
Multilingual
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
Automatic Metrics
Agentic eval
None
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

Recent advances in automatic speech recognition (ASR) have explored different sequence models, including Conformer-based models and newer state space models such as Mamba.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • Recent advances in automatic speech recognition (ASR) have explored different sequence models, including Conformer-based models and newer state space models such as Mamba.
  • Although prior work has evaluated these architectures in multiple languages, their effectiveness in African languages remains underexplored.
  • In this work, we evaluate Mamba for ASR on seven South African languages.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Contribution summary

  • In this work, we evaluate Mamba for ASR on seven South African languages.
  • Mamba achieves similar recognition accuracy to Conformer while using fewer computational resources and training faster.

Why it matters for eval

  • Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy, jailbreak success rate