On Target Segmentation for Direct Speech Translation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Recent studies on direct speech translation show continuous improvements by means of data augmentation techniques and bigger deep learning models. While these methods are helping to close the gap between this new approach and the more traditional cascaded one, there are many incongruities among different studies that make it difficult to assess the state of the art. Surprisingly, one point of discussion is the segmentation of the target text. Character-level segmentation has been initially proposed to obtain an open vocabulary, but it results on long sequences and long training time. Then, subword-level segmentation became the state of the art in neural machine translation as it produces shorter sequences that reduce the training time, while being superior to word-level models. As such, recent works on speech translation started using target subwords despite the initial use of characters and some recent claims of better results at the character level. In this work, we perform an extensive comparison of the two methods on three benchmarks covering 8 language directions and multilingual training. Subword-level segmentation compares favorably in all settings, outperforming its character-level counterpart in a range of 1 to 3 BLEU points.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 10 Sep 2020.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 3; 2022: 5; 2023: 3; 2024: 1.
12 papers.
- 2021CTC-based Compression for Direct Speech Translationcited by 45
- 2022Attention as a Guide for Simultaneous Speech Translationcited by 32
- 2022Under the Morphosyntactic Lens: A Multifaceted Evaluation of Gender Bias in Speech Translationcited by 23
- 2022Does Simultaneous Speech Translation need Simultaneous Models?cited by 22
- 2021Beyond Voice Activity Detection: Hybrid Audio Segmentation for Direct Speech Translationcited by 17
- 2022Efficient yet Competitive Speech Translation: FBK@IWSLT2022cited by 14
- 2023When Good and Reproducible Results are a Giant with Feet of Clay: The Importance of Software Quality in NLPcited by 14
- 2021How to Split: the Effect of Word Segmentation on Gender Bias in Speech Translationcited by 11
- 2022Who Are We Talking About? Handling Person Names in Speech Translationcited by 8
- 2024SPES: Spectrogram Perturbation for Explainable Speech-to-Text Generationcited by 6
- 2023No Pitch Left Behind: Addressing Gender Unbalance in Automatic Speech Recognition through Pitch Manipulationcited by 4
- 2023How To Build Competitive Multi-gender Speech Translation Models For Controlling Speaker Gender Translationcited by 2
- 2024SPES: Spectrogram Perturbation for Explainable Speech-to-Text Generation3 Nov 2024
- 2023How To Build Competitive Multi-gender Speech Translation Models For Controlling Speaker Gender Translation23 Oct 2023
- 2023No Pitch Left Behind: Addressing Gender Unbalance in Automatic Speech Recognition through Pitch Manipulation10 Oct 2023
- 2023When Good and Reproducible Results are a Giant with Feet of Clay: The Importance of Software Quality in NLP28 Mar 2023
- 2022Attention as a Guide for Simultaneous Speech Translation15 Dec 2022
- 2022Who Are We Talking About? Handling Person Names in Speech Translation13 May 2022
- 2022Efficient yet Competitive Speech Translation: FBK@IWSLT20225 May 2022
- 2022Does Simultaneous Speech Translation need Simultaneous Models?8 Apr 2022
- 2022Under the Morphosyntactic Lens: A Multifaceted Evaluation of Gender Bias in Speech Translation18 Mar 2022
- 2021How to Split: the Effect of Word Segmentation on Gender Bias in Speech Translation28 May 2021
- 2021Beyond Voice Activity Detection: Hybrid Audio Segmentation for Direct Speech Translation23 Apr 2021
- 2021CTC-based Compression for Direct Speech Translation2 Feb 2021