Cluster Assignments in Soft Targets Shape Speech Representations: Evidence from S-JEPA
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Cluster-based prediction is widely used in self-supervised speech learning. A soft target preserves a distribution over clusters rather than a single label. This distribution specifies both the probability values and which clusters receive them. Comparisons between soft targets and hard labels do not separate the contributions of these two aspects to the learned representation. We study this in S-JEPA, a recent high-performing self-supervised speech model trained with soft Gaussian mixture model (GMM) targets. We compare its original targets with counterfactual targets that preserve the most likely cluster and all probability values but change which remaining clusters receive the other probabilities. Across three training seeds, the original soft distribution is recovered more accurately from Encoders trained with the original than counterfactual targets. Because this could reflect target matching alone, we also test low-level acoustic and phonetic information. Both are more accessible from Encoders trained with the original targets. This suggests that cluster assignments affect acoustic and phonetic properties of the learned representation, not just recovery of the training target.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Aug 2026.
Builds on
19 of 27 references.
References · 19
- 2021HuBERT: Self-Supervised Speech Representation Learning by Masked Prediction of Hidden Unitscited by 2,301
- 2021WavLM: Large-Scale Self-Supervised Pre-Training for Full Stack Speech Processingcited by 1,609
- 2021SUPERB: Speech processing Universal PERformance Benchmarkcited by 652
- 2021Layer-wise Analysis of a Self-supervised Speech Representation Modelcited by 293
- 2022Self-supervised Learning with Random-projection Quantizer for Speech Recognitioncited by 158
- 2024Self-Supervised Speech Representations are More Phonetic than Semanticcited by 70
- 2023What Do Self-Supervised Speech Models Know About Words?cited by 62
- 2024A Large-Scale Evaluation of Speech Foundation Modelscited by 38
- 2023Probing self-supervised speech models for phonetic and phonemic information: a case study in aspirationcited by 35
- 2023DinoSR: Self-Distillation and Online Clustering for Self-supervised Speech Representation Learningcited by 34
- 2020Similarity Analysis of Self-Supervised Speech Representationscited by 26
- 2021Analyzing Speaker Information in Self-Supervised Models to Improve Zero-Resource Speech Processingcited by 26
7 more
- 2023Self-supervised Predictive Coding Models Encode Speaker and Phonetic Information in Orthogonal Subspacescited by 19
- 2024Orthogonality and isotropy of speaker and phonetic information in self-supervised speech representationscited by 14
- 2024What Do Self-Supervised Speech and Speaker Models Learn? New Findings From a Cross Model Layer-Wise Analysiscited by 10
- 2023Pushing the Limits of Unsupervised Unit Discovery for SSL Speech Representationcited by 7
- 2024Revisiting Self-supervised Learning of Speech Representation from a Mutual Information Perspectivecited by 5
- 2026S-JEPA : Soft Clustering Anchors for Self-Supervised Speech Representation Learningcited by 2
- 2026Soft Clustering Anchors for Self-Supervised Speech Representation Learning in Joint Embedding Prediction Architecturescited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.