Stephen McIntosh, Reuben Smit, Daisuke Saito +2cs.CL eess.AS
L2 speech assessment has traditionally focused on phonetic assessment, leaving the scoring of suprasegmental features such as rhythm and intonation underexplored. Moreover, assessment methods often require training with labeled L2 speech data, making them difficult to apply in low-resource settings. We investigate whether DTW over self-supervised WavLM representations can provide a text-free framework for assessing phonetic accuracy, rhythm, and intonation in English and Japanese L2 speech. Results show that a basic DTW-based approach that compares learner speech to native templates exceeds human agreement on holistic and sentence-level phonetic scoring. For rhythm, we introduce methods that measure the degree of warping in the DTW alignment path; our best method approaches human-level performance. For intonation, we combine DTW distance over prosodic residuals with pitch and intensity features, but performance remains more modest on some tasks. Our results point to self-supervised representations as a promising, text-free basis for multi-aspect pronunciation assessment.
Automated L2 speech assessment can assign proficiency labels, but often lacks interpretability. We propose a rubric-guided SpeechLLM for multi-aspect, multi-granular assessment, trained with a hybrid objective combining supervised fine-tuning and Bounded Direct Preference Optimization. The model jointly predicts ordinal labels at the sentence-level (accuracy, fluency, prosody), word/phoneme-level accuracy, and generates a natural-language rationale in the same response. On SpeechOcean762, our approach matches or outperforms single-granularity models while remaining competitive with prior approaches. We analyze rationale reliability along two axes: self-consistency with model predictions and alignment with ground-truth labels, using sentiment consistency (plausibility) and mention-based agreement (faithfulness). Rationales are plausible at the sentence level, but faithfulness degrades at the word/phoneme level: references are sparse and weakly aligned with token-level labels.