Kurdish is spoken by millions of people, but little technology can read it aloud. A recent study released three Kurdish voices, 35 hours of recorded speech, and a paper describing the work, all free to download. This review checks how well those public files match the paper. The research is careful about its limits, but the files contain several problems: a settings file lists equipment that was never used, test recordings are left unlabeled among training data, and a coding fault mishandles long numbers. The download page also claims a stronger result than the paper reports and recommends one voice for general use. That recommendation matters because Kurdish has major regional and written variation, while these voices were built from three people reading prepared texts. The process therefore removes much everyday and regional speech. English and German benefit from long traditions of dictionaries and linguistic description that help identify wrong pronunciations; Kurdish has far less such support, so software choices can go unchecked. The voices sound fluent, but they represent the reading styles of their speakers rather than Kurdish as a whole. Most of these issues can be fixed using information the team already has, without changing the reported results. Better records would mainly make the work easier for others, especially community linguists, to check and reuse. The license is the main exception: whether audiobook owners allow corrected versions to be shared will affect whether future Kurdish voices can build on this work or must start again.
Evaluating speech recognition for a Kurdish variety written in a Latin field orthography, using a model that outputs Arabic script, creates a measurement problem before a modelling one: direct scoring treats writing-system differences as recognition errors. Jointly normalizing reference and hypothesis avoids this, but also changes reference tokenization, mixing agreement gains with a change in the scoring denominator. I evaluate MMS-1B-all with the Central Kurdish (ckb) adapter, used as released without adaptation, on 1,722 Garrusi questionnaire segments from five speakers (9,763 reference word tokens; 117.9 minutes). I use a common-reference design: the reference is folded once and fixed at 9,763 tokens, while only the hypothesis representation varies. The raw Arabic-script hypothesis scores 111.70% WER and 100.92% CER, with zero exact word matches. Latin transliteration gives 102.36% WER and 57.89% CER; folding it into the reference's reduced orthography gives 97.85% and 51.20%. Thus RAW-to-FOLDED reduces measured WER by 13.85 points and CER by 49.72 points; folding alone accounts for 4.51 and 6.69 points. Substantial error remains: 14.53% of reference tokens are exact matches, edits are substitution-dominated, and per-segment WER is higher for shorter segments. A Southern Kurdish fine-tuned system (aranemini/southern-kurdish-asr), scored under the same design, performs worse on every speaker (1,703 segments), with 109.56% WER and 55.85% CER. However, 12,330 output characters fall outside the folding table, so these rates must be recomputed against the corrected fixed reference. The MMS output also contains 613 unconverted or unmapped characters, showing that part of the residual error reflects scoring-pipeline limits rather than recognition alone. I will release the fixed reference and segment-level results, subject to source-corpus sharing terms, to support independent checking.
H. Asadpour· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
