Create README.md
Browse files
README.md
ADDED
|
@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
+
---
|
| 2 |
+
language:
|
| 3 |
+
- ro
|
| 4 |
+
---
|
| 5 |
+
# Romanian Visual Speech Recognition (VSR) Models
|
| 6 |
+
|
| 7 |
+
This repository contains the model checkpoints for the paper **"VSRo-200: A Romanian Visual Speech Recognition Dataset for Studying Supervision and Multimodal Robustness"**.
|
| 8 |
+
|
| 9 |
+
These models are fine-tuned versions of MultiVSR, specifically trained for the Romanian language. We provide various checkpoints to demonstrate the impact of dataset size, annotation quality (human-annotated vs. automatically generated pseudo-labels), and gender distribution on VSR performance.
|
| 10 |
+
|
| 11 |
+
|
| 12 |
+
## 📊 Accompanying Dataset
|
| 13 |
+
The models were trained and evaluated on the **RoVSR Dataset** (Romanian Visual Speech Recognition Dataset), a 200-hour corpus of Romanian podcasts.
|
| 14 |
+
* **Dataset Link:** [vsro200/vsro200_dataset](https://huggingface.co/datasets/vsro200/vsro200_dataset)
|
| 15 |
+
|
| 16 |
+
## 📂 Repository Structure
|
| 17 |
+
All model checkpoints are stored in the `checkpoints/` directory. The naming convention follows the pattern: `model_[hours]_[type].pt`.
|
| 18 |
+
* `_annot`: Models trained on human-annotated data.
|
| 19 |
+
* `_auto`: Models trained on automatically transcribed data (pseudo-labels).
|
| 20 |
+
* `_shuffle`: Alternative data splits for the 100h models to test variance.
|
| 21 |
+
* `_males` / `_females` / `_mix`: Models trained specifically on gender-segregated or mixed 40-hour annotated subsets to evaluate gender bias.
|
| 22 |
+
|
| 23 |
+
---
|
| 24 |
+
|
| 25 |
+
## 🏆 Performance (Word Error Rate - WER)
|
| 26 |
+
|
| 27 |
+
Below are the primary results evaluated on the **Test Unseen** set. Lower WER indicates better performance.
|
| 28 |
+
|
| 29 |
+
### 1. Annotated vs. Auto Data Scaling
|
| 30 |
+
Comparison of models trained on perfectly annotated data versus those trained on automatically generated labels across different dataset sizes.
|
| 31 |
+
|
| 32 |
+
| Training Hours | Human Annotated (`_annot`) (%) | Auto Generated (`_auto`) (%) |
|
| 33 |
+
|:---:|:---:|:---:|
|
| 34 |
+
| 10h | 72.50 | 74.61 |
|
| 35 |
+
| 25h | 64.86 | 66.27 |
|
| 36 |
+
| 50h | 58.87 | 59.28 |
|
| 37 |
+
| 75h | 54.86 | 56.25 |
|
| 38 |
+
| 100h | 53.29 | 53.63 |
|
| 39 |
+
| 125h | -- | 51.71 |
|
| 40 |
+
| 150h | -- | 51.25 |
|
| 41 |
+
| 175h | -- | 49.84 |
|
| 42 |
+
| 200h | -- | 48.75 |
|
| 43 |
+
|
| 44 |
+
### 2. Gender Bias Analysis (40h Models)
|
| 45 |
+
Evaluation demonstrating the impact of gender representation in the training set.
|
| 46 |
+
|
| 47 |
+
| Training Subset | Global WER (%) | WER Males (%) | WER Females (%) |
|
| 48 |
+
|:---|:---:|:---:|:---:|
|
| 49 |
+
| 40h Males | 62.15 | 61.32 | 62.97 |
|
| 50 |
+
| 40h Females | 59.33 | 59.17 | 59.49 |
|
| 51 |
+
| 40h Mix | 59.52 | 59.19 | 59.85 |
|
| 52 |
+
|
| 53 |
+
### 3. Out of Distribution (OOD) Robustness
|
| 54 |
+
Evaluated using the `model_200h_auto.pt` checkpoint on different video degradation and domain shift scenarios.
|
| 55 |
+
|
| 56 |
+
| OOD Category | WER (%) |
|
| 57 |
+
|:---|:---:|
|
| 58 |
+
| Vlogs | 58.61 |
|
| 59 |
+
| Specific domains | 63.01 |
|
| 60 |
+
| Noisy | 68.96 |
|
| 61 |
+
| Archival | 87.97 |
|
| 62 |
+
| **Global OOD** | **68.46** |
|
| 63 |
+
|
| 64 |
+
### 4. Stability and Variance Analysis
|
| 65 |
+
Due to high computational resource requirements, comprehensive multiple-run variance testing was isolated to the 100-hour models. The models were trained across 3 different random data shuffles to observe stability and the true impact of human annotations versus auto-generated labels.
|
| 66 |
+
|
| 67 |
+
| Data Type (100h) | Mean WER (%) | Standard Deviation ($\sigma$) (%) |
|
| 68 |
+
|:---|:---:|:---:|
|
| 69 |
+
| Human Annotated | 53.21 | ± 0.37 |
|
| 70 |
+
| Auto Generated | 53.82 | ± 0.17 |
|
| 71 |
+
|
| 72 |
+
---
|
| 73 |
+
|
| 74 |
+
## 💻 Usage
|
| 75 |
+
|
| 76 |
+
To use these models, you can download them directly using the `huggingface_hub` library in Python:
|
| 77 |
+
```python
|
| 78 |
+
from huggingface_hub import hf_hub_download
|
| 79 |
+
|
| 80 |
+
# Download the 200h auto model
|
| 81 |
+
model_path = hf_hub_download(
|
| 82 |
+
repo_id="vsro200/VSR-Models",
|
| 83 |
+
filename="checkpoints/model_200h_auto.pt",
|
| 84 |
+
repo_type="model"
|
| 85 |
+
)
|
| 86 |
+
|
| 87 |
+
print(f"Model downloaded to: {model_path}")
|
| 88 |
+
```
|