Different Speech Translation Models Encode and Translate Speaker Gender Differently
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Recent studies on interpreting the hidden states of speech models have shown their ability to capture speaker-specific features, including gender. Does this finding also hold for speech translation (ST) models? If so, what are the implications for the speaker's gender assignment in translation? We address these questions from an interpretability perspective, using probing methods to assess gender encoding across diverse ST models. Results on three language directions (English-French/Italian/Spanish) indicate that while traditional encoder-decoder models capture gender information, newer architectures -- integrating a speech encoder with a machine translation system via adapters -- do not. We also demonstrate that low gender encoding capabilities result in systems' tendency toward a masculine default, a translation bias that is more pronounced in newer architectures.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 31 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Jun 2025.
Builds on
31 of 57 references.
References · 31
- 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,305
- 2020wav2vec 2.0: A Framework for Self-Supervised Learning of Speech Representationscited by 3,905
- 2022No Language Left Behind: Scaling Human-Centered Machine Translationcited by 1,312
- 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,033
- 2020Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLPcited by 956
- 2021Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advancescited by 876
- 2019Designing and Interpreting Probes with Control Taskscited by 640
- 2018What you can cram into a single vector: Probing sentence embeddings for linguistic propertiescited by 457
- 2021W2v-BERT: Combining Contrastive Learning and Masked Language Modeling for Self-Supervised Speech Pre-Trainingcited by 347
- 2019Mitigating Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing: Literature Reviewcited by 287
- 2018Analysis Methods in Neural Language Processing: A Surveycited by 277
- 2015Learning with a Wasserstein Losscited by 196
19 more
- 2020fairseq S2T: Fast Speech-to-Text Modeling with fairseqcited by 176
- 2022Comparative layer-wise analysis of self-supervised speech modelscited by 158
- 2020Probing the Probing Paradigm: Does Probing Accuracy Entail Task Relevance?cited by 151
- 2021Gender Bias in Machine Translationcited by 117
- 2020Speech Translation and the End-to-End Promise: Taking Stock of Where We Arecited by 77
- 2024Self-Supervised Speech Representations are More Phonetic than Semanticcited by 71
- 2020Gender in Danger? Evaluating Speech Translation Technology on the MuST-SHE Corpuscited by 57
- 2021Cascade versus Direct Speech Translation: Do the Differences Still Make a Difference?cited by 54
- 2022Probing phoneme, language and speaker information in unsupervised speech representationscited by 33
- 2024Twists, Humps, and Pebbles: Multilingual Speech Recognition Models Exhibit Gender Performance Gapscited by 25
- 2022Under the Morphosyntactic Lens: A Multifaceted Evaluation of Gender Bias in Speech Translationcited by 23
- 2024Speech Translation with Speech Foundation Models and Large Language Models: What is There and What is Missing?cited by 23
- 2024Encoding of lexical tone in self-supervised models of spoken languagecited by 23
- 2023What Can an Accent Identifier Learn? Probing Phonetic and Prosodic Information in a Wav2vec2-based Accent Identification Modelcited by 18
- 2020Breeding Gender-aware Direct Speech Translation Systemscited by 16
- 2022M-Adapter: Modality Adaptation for End-to-End Speech-to-Text Translationcited by 15
- 2021What do End-to-End Speech Models Learn about Speaker, Language and Channel Information? A Layer-wise and Neuron-level Analysiscited by 9
- 2024What Do Speech Foundation Models Not Learn About Speech?cited by 8
- 2024On the Encoding of Gender in Transformer-based ASR Representationscited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
3 papers.