Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

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

Jesujoba O. Alabi, Julian Herreilers, Badr M. Abdullah, Dietrich Klakow · Jul 1, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Low trust

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

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

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

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

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.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

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.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

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

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

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

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

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."

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

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

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

Reported Metrics

accuracyjailbreak success rate

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

Research Summary

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

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy, jailbreak success rate

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.