mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Automated Speech Scoring System Under The Lens: Evaluating and interpreting the linguistic cues for language proficiency

arXiv 2111.15156 ↗First posted 30 Nov 2021cs.CL cs.SD eess.AScited by 6

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

English proficiency assessments have become a necessary metric for filtering and selecting prospective candidates for both academia and industry. With the rise in demand for such assessments, it has become increasingly necessary to have the automated human-interpretable results to prevent inconsistencies and ensure meaningful feedback to the second language learners. Feature-based classical approaches have been more interpretable in understanding what the scoring model learns. Therefore, in this work, we utilize classical machine learning models to formulate a speech scoring task as both a classification and a regression problem, followed by a thorough study to interpret and study the relation between the linguistic cues and the English proficiency level of the speaker. First, we extract linguist features under five categories (fluency, pronunciation, content, grammar and vocabulary, and acoustic) and train models to grade responses. In comparison, we find that the regression-based models perform equivalent to or better than the classification approach. Second, we perform ablation studies to understand the impact of each of the feature and feature categories on the performance of proficiency grading. Further, to understand individual feature contributions, we present the importance of top features on the best performing algorithm for the grading task. Third, we make use of Partial Dependence Plots and Shapley values to explore feature importance and conclude that the best performing trained model learns the underlying rubrics used for grading the dataset used in this study.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 67 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Nov 2021.

Builds on

15 of 67 references.

References · 15

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
  2. 2019Common Voice: A Massively-Multilingual Speech Corpuscited by 1,384
  3. 2015Deep Speech 2: End-to-End Speech Recognition in English and Mandarincited by 451
  4. 2021What all do audio transformer models hear? Probing Acoustic Representations for Language Delivery and its Structurecited by 52
  5. 2020Model-agnostic Feature Importance and Effects with Dependent Features -- A Conditional Subgroup Approachcited by 37
  6. 2017Deep Learning for Environmentally Robust Speech Recognition: An Overview of Recent Developmentscited by 30
  7. 2018A Word-Complexity Lexicon and A Neural Readability Ranking Model for Lexical Simplificationcited by 24
  8. 2017SkipFlow: Incorporating Neural Coherence Features for End-to-End Automatic Text Scoringcited by 22
  9. 2020Get It Scored Using AutoSAS -- An Automated System for Scoring Short Answerscited by 18
  10. 2021Speaker-Conditioned Hierarchical Modeling for Automated Speech Scoringcited by 8
  11. 2020audino: A Modern Annotation Tool for Audio and Speechcited by 7
  12. 2020My Teacher Thinks The World Is Flat! Interpreting Automatic Essay Scoring Mechanismcited by 7
3 more
  1. 2020Multi-modal Automated Speech Scoring using Attention Fusioncited by 6
  2. 2020Towards Modelling Coherence in Spoken Discoursecited by 5
  3. 2021Using Sampling to Estimate and Improve Performance of Automated Scoring Systems with Guaranteescited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 2; 2024: 0; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.

6 papers.