Error Rate is Not Enough: Costs of Augmentation in Low-Resource ASR

arXiv:2610.13807v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Data augmentation is standard practice for low-resource automatic speech recognition (ASR), but its benefits are almost always reported as aggregate error rates, leaving open why and when a method helps. On four low-resource languages and English at five data sizes, we cross two augmentations that modify existing audio (speed perturbation and SpecAugment) with two that modify text transcriptions and synthesize audio from it. We analyze errors at the phoneme level and find that they help for complementary reasons. SpecAugment has the most reliable aggregate improvements, but increases tone and palatalization errors, whereas text-based methods introduce consonant insertions; in combination, each reduces the errors the other introduces. This complementarity is predictable. Tone and palatalization are each signaled by a single acoustic property and occur least frequently in training (lowest training exposure), and text-based methods that flatten word frequency raise their frequency by 37--38%, reversing those errors while further improving aggregate error. The improvement from combining the methods exceeds the sum of their individual improvements; the superadditivity vanishes by 100 hours, limiting the complementarity to the low-resource regime. Where specific error types matter, we recommend selecting augmentation by training exposure and acoustic properties, both measurable before any training.

Abstract:Data augmentation is standard practice for low-resource automatic speech recognition (ASR), but its benefits are almost always reported as aggregate error rates, leaving open why and when a method helps. On four low-resource languages and English at five data sizes, we cross two augmentations that modify existing audio (speed perturbation and SpecAugment) with two that modify text transcriptions and synthesize audio from it. We analyze errors at the phoneme level and find that they help for complementary reasons. SpecAugment has the most reliable aggregate improvements, but increases tone and palatalization errors, whereas text-based methods introduce consonant insertions; in combination, each reduces the errors the other introduces. This complementarity is predictable. Tone and palatalization are each signaled by a single acoustic property and occur least frequently in training (lowest training exposure), and text-based methods that flatten word frequency raise their frequency by 37--38%, reversing those errors while further improving aggregate error. The improvement from combining the methods exceeds the sum of their individual improvements; the superadditivity vanishes by 100 hours, limiting the complementarity to the low-resource regime. Where specific error types matter, we recommend selecting augmentation by training exposure and acoustic properties, both measurable before any training.

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2610.13807 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2610.13807v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.13807 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

aiqbench analysis

Error Rate is Not Enough: Costs of Augmentation in Low-Resource ASR

Related coverage