Comparative Noise Robustness of Fine-Tuned English versus Flemish-Only Pre-Trained Speech Models on Limited Flemish Data
Abstract
Abstract: Recent research in speech processing exhibits a growing interest in unsupervised and self-supervised representation learning from unlabelled data to alleviate the need for large amounts of annotated data. We investigate several popular pre-training methods and apply them to Flemish Dutch. We compare off-the-shelf English pre-trained models to models trained on an increasing amount of Flemish data. We find that the most important factors for positive transfer to downstream speech recognition tasks include a substantial amount of data and a matching pre-training domain. Ideally, we also finetune
Research Question
Does fine-tuning English pre-trained speech models on limited Flemish data yield comparable robustness to noise as models pre-trained exclusively on Flemish Dutch?
Verification Level
| Paper level | L2, Source-grounded claims | |
| Source-grounded claims | 15 | |
| Claim record source | parsed source sections |
Descriptive public verification status only; aggregate claim counts are public, but individual claim records are not exposed here.
Truth-Engine Gate Verdict
| Status | Falsified | |
| Gate | Gate 2 — Verification (formal proof or sandbox reproduction) | |
| Reason | [Gate 3 RED-TEAM FALSIFIED] avg_attack_score=9.5/10. COUNTEREXAMPLE_HUNTER(9.5):The verification script performs a trivial dictionary lookup of hardcoded values; CITATION_AUDITOR(9.5):The verification script does not reproduce any experimental result regarding 'ro; REPLICATION_ATTACKER(9.5):The verification script performs a trivial dictionary lookup of hardcoded consta | |
| Evaluated | 2026-06-17T18:36:31.640769+00:00 |
A claim in this record was tested against Gate 2 and failed: a counterexample was found, a proof did not type-check, or a reproduction attempt did not match the reported results. Evidence for the failure is attached to this record. VERIFIED requires an attached reproducible artifact (Lean4 proof source, or repro script and results) before this status can be set; it is not derived from review score or claim count.
Quality Tier
| Tier | DOI grade | |
| Basis | Review score and verified-claim count meet DOI-grade public quality thresholds. |
Descriptive public triage only; this tier does not alter current publication or DOI behavior.
Quality Dimensions
| Evidence strength | MEDIUM | |
| Citation grounding | MEDIUM | |
| Uncertainty disclosure | MEDIUM | |
| Reproducibility status | HIGH |
Automated triage signals derived from public fields; not human peer review or independent validation.
Correction Record
| Status | CURRENT |
| Correction count | 0 |
| Manifest contract | paper-manifest-v1.1 |
| Correction contract | correction-record-v1 |
Public corrections are additive records. Current status does not claim the synthesis is error-free.
Provenance
| Publisher | Assignee Research |
| Public provenance | L4, External archival record |
| Report artifact | Available |
| External record | Registered |
| Claim lineage | 15 aggregate source-grounded claims |
| Review method | Automated multi-reviewer assessment |
| Quality guide | How to read scores, claims, manifests, and evidence links |
| Provenance contract | source-provenance-v1 |
| Note | Machine-generated synthesis of existing literature. Not primary research. |