BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Martijn Bartelds

Martijn Bartelds contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Computation and Languageeess.ASSoundArtificial IntelligenceHuman-Computer InteractionMachine Learning

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
6topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Categorize Early, Integrate Late: Divergent Processing Strategies in Automatic Speech Recognition

In speech language modeling, two architectures dominate the frontier: the Transformer and the Conformer. However, it remains unknown whether their comparable performance stems from convergent processing strategies or distinct architectural inductive biases. We introduce Architectural Fingerprinting, a probing framework that isolates the effect of architecture on representation, and apply it to a controlled suite of 24 pre-trained encoders (39M-3.3B parameters). Our analysis reveals divergent hierarchies: Conformers implement a "Categorize Early" strategy, resolving phoneme categories 29% earlier in depth and speaker gender by 16% depth. In contrast, Transformers "Integrate Late," deferring phoneme, accent, and duration encoding to deep layers (49-57%). These fingerprints suggest design heuristics: Conformers' front-loaded categorization may benefit low-latency streaming, while Transformers' deep integration may favor tasks requiring rich context and cross-utterance normalization.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2026arXiv

Voice ''Cloning'' is Style Transfer

Artificially generated speech is increasingly embedded in everyday life. Voice cloning in particular enables applications where identity preservation is important, such as completing a recording, dubbing in a new language, or preserving the voices of individuals with speech loss. However, in our work, we find that despite the term, voice cloning does not faithfully ''clone'' an individual's voice. Instead, we find that widely-used voice cloning models systematically apply style transfer to source voices. As rated by human annotators, cloned voices are perceived as more authoritative, warm, customer-service-like, and human-like compared to their sources. Human annotators also report greater trust in cloned voices than source voices, and a greater willingness to disclose sensitive personal information to them. Our work furthermore shows that voice cloning leads to homogenization of speaker characteristics, as measured by reduced variance in accent, speaking rate, and the audio embedding space. Together, our results highlight a new set of limitations and risks of voice cloning technology and their potential impact on human behavior.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Automated speech tools for helping communities process restricted-access corpora for language revival efforts

Many archival recordings of speech from endangered languages remain unannotated and inaccessible to community members and language learning programs. One bottleneck is the time-intensive nature of annotation. An even narrower bottleneck occurs for recordings with access constraints, such as language that must be vetted or filtered by authorised community members before annotation can begin. We propose a privacy-preserving workflow to widen both bottlenecks for recordings where speech in the endangered language is intermixed with a more widely-used language such as English for meta-linguistic commentary and questions (e.g. What is the word for 'tree'?). We integrate voice activity detection (VAD), spoken language identification (SLI), and automatic speech recognition (ASR) to transcribe the metalinguistic content, which an authorised person can quickly scan to triage recordings that can be annotated by people with lower levels of access. We report work-in-progress processing 136 hours archival audio containing a mix of English and Muruwari. Our collaborative work with the Muruwari custodian of the archival materials show that this workflow reduces metalanguage transcription time by 20% even given only minimal amounts of annotated training data: 10 utterances per language for SLI and for ASR at most 39 minutes, and possibly as little as 39 seconds.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Neural Representations for Modeling Variation in Speech

Variation in speech is often quantified by comparing phonetic transcriptions of the same utterance. However, manually transcribing speech is time-consuming and error prone. As an alternative, therefore, we investigate the extraction of acoustic embeddings from several self-supervised neural models. We use these representations to compute word-based pronunciation differences between non-native and native speakers of English, and between Norwegian dialect speakers. For comparison with several earlier studies, we evaluate how well these differences match human perception by comparing them with available human judgements of similarity. We show that speech representations extracted from a specific type of neural model (i.e. Transformers) lead to a better match with human perception than two earlier approaches on the basis of phonetic transcriptions and MFCC-based acoustic features. We furthermore find that features from the neural models can generally best be extracted from one of the middle hidden layers than from the final layer. We also demonstrate that neural speech representations not only capture segmental differences, but also intonational and durational differences that cannot adequately be represented by a set of discrete symbols used in phonetic transcriptions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Quantifying Language Variation Acoustically with Few Resources

Deep acoustic models represent linguistic information based on massive amounts of data. Unfortunately, for regional languages and dialects such resources are mostly not available. However, deep acoustic models might have learned linguistic information that transfers to low-resource languages. In this study, we evaluate whether this is the case through the task of distinguishing low-resource (Dutch) regional varieties. By extracting embeddings from the hidden layers of various wav2vec 2.0 models (including new models which are pre-trained and/or fine-tuned on Dutch) and using dynamic time warping, we compute pairwise pronunciation differences averaged over 10 words for over 100 individual dialects from four (regional) languages. We then cluster the resulting difference matrix in four groups and compare these to a gold standard, and a partitioning on the basis of comparing phonetic transcriptions. Our results show that acoustic models outperform the (traditional) transcription-based approach without requiring phonetic transcriptions, with the best performance achieved by the multilingual XLSR-53 model fine-tuned on Dutch. On the basis of only six seconds of speech, the resulting clustering closely matches the gold standard.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access