Introduction
Low-resource automatic speech-to-text translation (AST) has recently gained traction as a way to bring NLP tools to under-represented languages. An end-to-end approach BIBREF0, BIBREF1, BIBREF2, BIBREF3, BIBREF4, BIBREF5, BIBREF6 is particularly appealing for source languages with no written form, or for endangered languages where translations into a high-resource language may be easier to collect than transcriptions BIBREF7. However, building high-quality end-to-end AST with little parallel data is challenging, and has led researchers to explore how other sources of data could be used to help.
A number of methods have been investigated. Several of these use transcribed source language audio and/or translated source language text in a multitask learning scenario BIBREF8, BIBREF3, BIBREF5 or to pre-train parts of the model before fine-tuning on the end-to-end AST task BIBREF3. Others assume, as we do here, that no additional source language resources are available, in which case transfer learning using data from language(s) other than the source language is a good option. In particular, several researchers have shown that low-resource AST can be improved by pretraining on an ASR task in some other language, then transferring the encoder parameters to initialize the AST model. For example, Bansal et al. BIBREF4 showed that pre-training on either English or French ASR improved their Spanish-English AST system (trained on 20 hours of parallel data) and Tian BIBREF9 got improvements on an 8-hour Swahili-English AST dataset using English ASR pretraining.
Overall these results show that pretraining helps, but leave open the question of what factors affect the degree of improvement. For example, does language relatedness play a role, or simply the amount of pretraining data? Bansal et al. showed bigger AST gains as the amount of English pretraining data increased from 20 to 300 hours, and also found a slightly larger improvement when pretraining on 20 hours of English versus 20 hours of French, but they pointed out that the Spanish data contains many English code-switched words, which could explain the latter result. In related work on multilingual pretraining for low-resource ASR, Adams et al. BIBREF10 showed that pre-training on more languages helps, but it is not clear whether the improvement is due to including more languages, or just more data.
To begin to tease apart these issues, we focus here on monolingual pretraining for low-resource AST, and investigate two questions. First, can we predict what sort of pretraining data is best for a particular AST task? Does it matter if the pretraining language is related to the AST source language (defined here as part of the same language family, since phonetic similarity is difficult to measure), or is the amount of pretraining data (or some other factor) more important? Second, can pretraining be effectively combined with other methods, such as data augmentation, in order to further improve AST results?
To answer these questions, we use the same AST architecture and Spanish-English parallel data as Bansal et al. BIBREF4, but pretrain the encoder using a number of different ASR datasets: the 150-hour AISHELL corpus of Chinese as well as seven GlobalPhone languages, each with about 20 hours of data. We find that pretraining on a larger amount of data from an unrelated language is much better than pretraining on a smaller amount of data from a related language. Moreover, even when controlling for the amount of data, the WER of the ASR model from pretraining seems to be a better predictor of final AST performance than does language relatedness. Indeed, we show that there is a very strong correlation between the WER of the pretraining model and BLEU score of the final AST model—i.e., the best pretraining strategy may simply be to use datasets and methods that will yield the lowest ASR WER during pretraining. However, we also found that AST results can be improved further by augmenting the AST data using standard speed perturbation techniques BIBREF11. Our best results using non-English pretraining data improve the test set BLEU scores of an AST system trained on 20 hours of parallel data from 10.2 to 14.3, increasing to 15.8 with data augmentation.
Finally, we analyze the representations learned by the models and show that better performance seems to correlate with the extent to which phonetic information is encoded in a linearly separable way in the later RNN layers.
Methodology
For both ASR and AST tasks we use the same end-to-end system architecture shown in Figure FIGREF1: the encoder-decoder model from BIBREF4, which itself is adapted from BIBREF1, BIBREF3 and BIBREF2. Details of the architecture and training parameters are described in Section SECREF9.
After pretraining an ASR model, we transfer only its encoder parameters to the AST task. Previous experiments BIBREF4 showed that the encoder accounts for most of the benefits of transferring the parameters. Transferring also the decoder and attention mechanism does bring some improvements, but is only feasible when the ASR pretraining language is the same as the AST target language, which is not true in most of our experiments.
In addition to pretraining, we experimented with data augmentation. Specifically, we augmented the AST data using Kaldi's BIBREF12 3-way speed perturbation, adding versions of the AST data where the audio is sped down and up by a factor of 0.9 and 1.1, respectively.
To evaluate ASR performance we compute the word error rate (WER). To evaluate AST performance we calculate the 4-gram BLEU score BIBREF13 on four reference translations.
Experimental Setup ::: Parallel data
For the AST models, we use Spanish-English parallel data from Fisher corpus BIBREF14, containing 160 hours of Spanish telephone speech translated into English text. To simulate low-resource settings, we randomly downsample the original corpus to 20 hours of training data. Each of the dev and test sets comprise 4.5 hours of speech.
Experimental Setup ::: Pretraining data
Since we focus on investigating factors that might affect the AST improvements over the baseline when pretraining, we have chosen ASR datasets for pretraining that contrast in the number of hours and/or in the language similarity with Spanish. Statistics for each dataset are in the left half of Table TABREF7, with further details below.
To look at a range of languages with similar amounts of data, we used GlobalPhone corpora from seven languages BIBREF15, each with around 20 hours of speech: Mandarin Chinese (zh), Croatian (hr), Czech (cs), French (fr), Polish (pl), Portuguese (pt), and Swedish (sv). French and Portuguese, like the source language (Spanish), belong to the Romance family of languages, while the other languages are less related—especially Chinese, which is not an Indo-European language. GlobalPhone consists of read speech recorded using similar conditions across languages, and the transcriptions for Chinese are Romanized, with annotated word boundaries.
To explore the effects of using a large amount of pretraining data from an unrelated language, we used the AISHELL-1 corpus of Mandarin Chinese BIBREF16, which contains 150 hours of read speech. Transcriptions with annotated word boundaries are available in both Hanzi (Chinese characters) and Romanized versions, and we built models with each. To compare to the GlobalPhone data, we also created a 20-hour subset of the Romanized AISHELL (zh-ai-small) by randomly selecting utterances from a subset of the speakers (81, roughly the number present in most of the GlobalPhone datasets).
Finally, to reproduce one of the experiments from BIBREF4, we pre-trained one model using 300 hours of Switchboard English BIBREF17. This data is the most similar to the AST speech data in terms of style and channel (both are conversational telephone speech). However, as noted by BIBREF4, the Fisher Spanish speech contains many words that are actually in English (code-switching), so pretraining on English may provide an unfair advantage relative to other languages.
Experimental Setup ::: Preprocessing
We compute 13-dim MFCCs and cepstral mean and variance normalization along speakers using Kaldi BIBREF12 on our ASR and AST audio. To shorten the training time, we trimmed utterances from the AST data to 16 seconds (or 12 seconds for the 160h augmented dataset).
To account for unseen words in the test data, we model the ASR and AST text outputs via sub-word units using byte-pair encoding (BPE) BIBREF18. We do this separately for each dataset as BPE works best as a language-specific tool (i.e. it depends on the frequency of different subword units, which varies with the language). We use 1k merge operations in all cases except Hanzi, where there are around 3000 symbols initially (vs around 60 in the other datasets). For Hanzi we ran experiments with both 1k and 15k merge operations. For Chinese Romanized transcriptions we removed tone diacritics.
Experimental Setup ::: Model architecture and training
Following the architecture and training procedure described in BIBREF4, input speech features are fed into a stack of two CNN layers. In each CNN layer we stride the input with a factor of 2 along time, apply ReLU activation BIBREF19 followed by batch normalization BIBREF20. The CNN output is fed into a three-layer bi-directional long short-term memory network (LSTM) BIBREF21, with 512 hidden layer dimensions. For decoding, we use the predicted token 20% of the time and the training token 80% of the time BIBREF22 as input to a 128-dimensional embedding layer followed by a three-layer LSTM, with 256 hidden layer dimensions, and combine this with the output from the attention mechanism BIBREF23 to predict the word at the current time step.
We use code and hyperparameter settings from BIBREF4: the Adam optimizer BIBREF24 with an initial learning rate of 0.001 and decay it by a factor of 0.5 based on the dev set BLEU score. When training AST models, we regularize using dropout BIBREF25 with a ratio of $0.3$ over the embedding and LSTM layers BIBREF26; weight decay with a rate of $0.0001$; and, after the first 20 epochs, 30% of the time we replace the predicted output word by a random word from the target vocabulary. At test time we use beam decoding with a beam size of 5 and length normalization BIBREF27 with a weight of 0.6.
Results and Discussion ::: Baseline and ASR results
Our baseline 20-hour AST system obtains a BLEU score of 10.3 (Table TABREF7, first row), 0.5 BLEU point lower than that reported by BIBREF4. This discrepancy might be due to differences in subsampling from the 160-hour AST dataset to create the 20-hour subset, or from Kaldi parameters when computing the MFCCs.
WERs for our pre-trained models (Table TABREF7) vary from 22.5 for the large AISHELL dataset with Romanized transcript to 80.5 for Portuguese GlobalPhone. These are considerably worse than state-of-the-art ASR systems (e.g., Kaldi recipes can achieve WER of 7.5 on AISHELL and 26.5 on Portuguese GlobalPhone), but we did not optimize our architecture or hyperparameters for the ASR task since our main goal is to analyze the relationship between pretraining and AST performance (and in order to use pretraining, we must use a seq2seq model with the architecture as for AST).
Results and Discussion ::: Pretraining the AST task on ASR models
AST results for our pre-trained models are given in Table TABREF7. Pretraining improves AST performance in every case, with improvements ranging from 0.2 (pt-gp) to 4.3 (zh-ai-large). These results make it clear that language relatedness does not play a strong role in predicting AST improvements, since on the similar-sized GlobalPhone datasets, the two languages most related to Spanish (French and Portuguese) yield the highest and lowest improvements, respectively. Moreover, pretraining on the large Chinese dataset yields a bigger improvement than either of these—4.3 BLEU points. This is nearly as much as the 6 point improvement reported by BIBREF4 when pretraining on 100 hours of English data, which is especially surprising given not only that Chinese is very different from Spanish, but also that the Spanish data contains some English words.
This finding seems to suggest that data size is more important than language relatedness for predicting the effects of pretraining. However, there are big differences even amongst the languages with similar amounts of pretraining data. Analyzing our results further, we found a striking correlation between the WER of the initial ASR model and the BLEU score of the AST system pretrained using that model, as shown in Figure FIGREF11. Therefore, although pretraining data size clearly influences AST performance, this appears to be mainly due to its effect on WER of the ASR model. We therefore hypothesize that WER is a better direct predictor of AST performance than either data size or language relatedness.
Results and Discussion ::: Multilingual pretraining
Although our main focus is monolingual pretraining, we also looked briefly at multilingual pretraining, inspired by recent work on multilingual ASR BIBREF28, BIBREF29 and evidence that multilingual pretraining followed by fine-tuning on a distinct target language can improve ASR on the target language BIBREF10, BIBREF30, BIBREF31. These experiments did not directly compare pretraining using a similar amount of monolingual data, but such a comparison was done by BIBREF32, BIBREF33 in their work on learning feature representations for a target language with no transcribed data. They found a benefit for multilingual vs monolingual pretraining given the same amount of data.
Following up on this work, we tried pretraining using 124 hours of multilingual data (all GlobalPhone languages except Chinese), roughly the amount of data in our large Chinese models. We combined all the data together and trained an ASR model using a common target BPE with 6k merge operations, then transferred only the encoder to the AST model. However, we did not see a benefit to the multilingual training (Table TABREF7, final row); in fact the resulting AST model was slightly worse than the zh-ai-large model (BLEU of 13.3 vs 14.6). Other configurations of multilingual training might still outperform their monolingual counterparts, but we leave this investigation as future work.
Results and Discussion ::: Augmenting the parallel data
Table TABREF16 (top) shows how data augmentation affects the results of the baseline 20h AST system, as well as three of the best-performing pretrained models from Table TABREF7. For these experiments only, we changed the learning rates of the augmented-data systems so that all models took about the same amount of time to train (see Figure FIGREF17). Despite a more aggressive learning schedule, the performance of the augmented-data systems surpasses that of the baseline and pretrained models, even those trained on the largest ASR sets (150-hr Chinese and 300-hr English).
For comparison to other work, Table TABREF16 (bottom) gives results for AST models trained on the full 160 hours of parallel data, including models with both pretraining and data augmentation. For the latter, we used the original learning schedule, but had to stop training early due to time constraints (after 15 days, compared to 8 days for complete training of the non-augmented 160h models). We find that both pretraining and augmentation still help, providing a combined gain of 3.8 (3.2) BLEU points over the baseline on the dev (test) set.
Analyzing the models' representations
Finally, we hope to gain some understanding into why pretraining on ASR helps with AST, and specifically how the neural network representations change during pretraining and fine-tuning. We follow BIBREF34 and BIBREF9, who built diagnostic classifiers BIBREF35 to examine the representation of phonetic information in end-to-end ASR and AST systems, respectively. Unlike BIBREF34, BIBREF9, who used non-linear classifiers, we use a linear classifier to predict phone labels from the internal representations of the trained ASR or AST model.
Using a linear classifier allows us to make more precise claims: if the classifier performs better using the representation from a particular layer, we can say that layer represents the phonetic information in a more linearly separable way. Using a nonlinear classifier raises questions about how to choose the complexity of the classifier itself, and therefore makes any results difficult to interpret.
We hypothesized that pretraining allows the models to abstract away from nonlinguistic acoustic differences, and to better represent phonetic information: crucially, both in the trained language and in other languages. To test this hypothesis, we used two phone-labelled datasets distinct from all our ASR and AST datasets: the English TIMIT corpus (a language different to all of our trained models, with hand-labeled phones) and the Spanish GlobalPhone corpus (the same language as our AST source language, with phonetic forced-alignments produced using Kaldi). We randomly sampled utterances from these and passed them through the trained encoders, giving us a total of about 600k encoded frames. We used 400k of these to train logistic regression models to predict the phone labels, and tested on the remaining 200k frames.
Separate logistic regression models were trained on the representations from each layer of the encoder. Since convolutional layers have a stride of 2, the number of frames decreases at each convolutional layer. To label the frames after a convolutional layer we eliminated every other label (and corresponding frame) from the original label sequence. For example, given label sequence S$_{\text{1}}$ = aaaaaaann at input layer, we get sequence S$_{\text{2}}$ = aaaan at the first convolutional layer and sequence S$_{\text{3}}$ = aan at the second convolutional layer and at the following recurrent layers.
Results for the two classification data sets (Figure FIGREF18) show very similar patterns. In both the ASR and the AST models, the pretraining data seems to make little difference to phonetic encoding at the early layers, and classification accuracy peaks at the second CNN layer. However, the RNN layers show a clear trend where phone classification accuracy drops off more slowly for models with better ASR/AST performance (i.e., zh $>$ fr $>$ pt). That is, the later RNN layers more transparently encode language-universal phonetic information.
Phone classification accuracy in the RNN layers drops for both English and Spanish after fine-tuning on the AST data. This is slightly surprising for Spanish, since the fine-tuning data (unlike the pretraining data) is actually Spanish speech. However, we hypothesize that for AST, higher layers of the encoder may be recruited more to encode semantic information needed for the translation task, and therefore lose some of the linear separability in the phonetic information. Nevertheless, we still see the same pattern where better end-to-end models have higher classification accuracy in the later layers.
Conclusions
This paper explored what factors help pretraining for low-resource AST. We performed careful comparisons to tease apart the effects of language relatedness and data size, ultimately finding that rather than either of these, the WER of the pre-trained ASR model is likely the best direct predictor of AST performance. Given equivalent amounts of data, we did not find multilingual pretraining to help more than monolingual pretraining, but we did find an added benefit from using speed perturbation to augment the AST data. Finally, analysis of the pretrained models suggests that those models with better WER are transparently encoding more language-universal phonetic information in the later RNN layers, and this appears to help with AST.

Question: What sizes were their datasets?
Answer: ast-20h: 20 hours,
zh-ai-small: 20 hours,
zh-ai-large: 150 hours,
zh-ai-hanzi: 150 hours,
hr-gp: 12 hours,
sv-gp: 18 hours,
pl-gp: 19 hours,
pt-gp: 23 hours,
fr-gp: 25 hours,
zh-gp: 26 hours,
cs-gp: 27 hours,
multilin6: 124 hours

150-hour AISHELL corpus of Chinese as well as seven GlobalPhone languages, each with about 20 hours of data

20 hours of training data, dev and test sets comprise 4.5 hours of speech

Question: How many layers does their model have?
Answer: 10 

two 

two CNN layers, three-layer bi-directional long short-term memory network (LSTM), followed by a three-layer LSTM

Question: What is their model's architecture?
Answer:  the encoder-decoder model from BIBREF4, which itself is adapted from BIBREF1, BIBREF3 and BIBREF2

encoder-decoder model, end-to-end system architecture

two CNN layers, three-layer bi-directional long short-term memory network (LSTM),  followed by a three-layer LSTM

Question: What languages did they use?
Answer: Spanish, English , Chinese , Mandarin Chinese , Croatian , Czech , French , Polish , Portuguese , Swedish 

Spanish, English, Mandarin Chinese, Croatian, Czech, French, Polish, Portuguese, Swedish

Spanish-English