Whisper-Tiny Portuguese - High-Quality Filtered Synthetic Data (Best Tiny Configuration)
This model is a fine-tuned version of openai/whisper-tiny for Portuguese automatic speech recognition (ASR). It was trained on Common Voice 17.0 Portuguese combined with WAVe-filtered high-quality synthetic speech data using a strict threshold (q ≥ 0.8).
Purpose
This model represents the best configuration for Whisper-Tiny Portuguese, achieving a 1.39 percentage point improvement over the CV-only baseline. However, the paper emphasizes that this gain is modest:
"The Portuguese Whisper-Tiny model achieves its lowest test WER of 29.33% using the high-quality filtered subset, an improvement of just 1.39 percentage points over the Common Voice baseline of 30.72%. This modest gain offers limited justification for the additional data filtering and preprocessing overhead."
This model demonstrates that while high-quality filtering provides the best results for Tiny, the improvement is marginal compared to the dramatic gains seen with Large-v3 models (+32.6%).
Model Details
| Property | Value |
|---|---|
| Base Model | openai/whisper-tiny |
| Language | Portuguese (pt) |
| Task | Automatic Speech Recognition (transcribe) |
| Parameters | 39M |
| Training Data | Common Voice 17.0 + High-Quality Synthetic (q ≥ 0.8) |
| Total Training Samples | 29,178 |
| Sampling Rate | 16kHz |
Evaluation Results
This Model (whisper-tiny-high-mixed-pt)
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Validation Loss | 0.4481 |
| Validation WER | 26.74% |
| Test WER (Common Voice) | 29.33% |
| Test WER (MLS) | 44.18% |
| Best Checkpoint | Step 350 |
| Max Training Steps | 575 |
Comparison with Other Training Configurations (Whisper-Tiny Portuguese)
| Training Data | Max Steps | Val Loss | Val WER | Test WER (CV) | Test WER (MLS) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Common Voice Only | 430 | 0.4463 | 27.05% | 30.72% | 45.83% |
| High-Quality (q ≥ 0.8) + CV | 575 | 0.4481 | 26.74% | 29.33% | 44.18% |
| Mid-High (q ≥ 0.5) + CV | 805 | 0.4550 | 26.95% | 30.11% | 47.25% |
| All Synthetic + CV | 860 | 0.4517 | 28.06% | 29.84% | 46.54% |
Key Performance Highlights
- Best Tiny configuration: Lowest Test WER (29.33%) and MLS WER (44.18%)
- Modest improvement: Only 1.39% better than baseline on in-domain
- Best cross-domain: 44.18% MLS WER (best among Tiny configurations)
- Quality threshold matters: Strict q ≥ 0.8 filtering provides best results for Tiny
Tiny vs Large: Synthetic Data Impact
The contrast with Large-v3 models illustrates the architectural capacity limitation:
| Model | High-Quality Synthetic Impact | Test WER | vs Baseline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whisper-Tiny | Best config, but marginal | 29.33% | +1.39% (4.5% relative) |
| Whisper-Large-v3 | Dramatic improvement | 7.94% | +3.84% (32.6% relative) |
For Large-v3, high-quality synthetic data reduces WER by 32.6%. For Tiny, the same approach yields only 4.5% relative improvement.
Training Data
Dataset Composition
| Source | Samples | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Common Voice 17.0 Portuguese | 21,866 | Real speech from Mozilla's crowdsourced dataset |
| Synthetic Transcript PT (q ≥ 0.8) | 7,312 | Strictly WAVe-filtered TTS audio (high quality only) |
| Total | 29,178 |
WAVe Quality Distribution (Portuguese Synthetic Data)
| Quality Level | Samples | Percentage | Used in This Model |
|---|---|---|---|
| High (q ≥ 0.8) | 7,312 | 33.3% | ✓ |
| Medium (0.5 ≤ q < 0.8) | 11,869 | 54.0% | ✗ |
| Low (q < 0.5) | 2,787 | 12.7% | ✗ |
This strict threshold retains only the top 33.3% of synthetic samples, which proves optimal for Tiny models that cannot handle noisier data.
Training Procedure
Hyperparameters
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Learning Rate | 5e-5 |
| Batch Size (Global) | 256 |
| Warmup Steps | 200 |
| Max Epochs | 5 |
| Precision | BF16 |
| Optimizer | AdamW (fused) |
| Eval Steps | 50 |
| Metric for Best Model | eval_loss |
Training Infrastructure
- GPU: NVIDIA H200 (140GB VRAM)
- Operating System: Ubuntu 22.04
- Framework: Hugging Face Transformers
Usage
Transcription Pipeline
from transformers import pipeline
transcriber = pipeline(
"automatic-speech-recognition",
model="yuriyvnv/whisper-tiny-high-mixed-pt",
device="cuda"
)
result = transcriber("path/to/portuguese_audio.wav")
print(result["text"])
Direct Model Usage
from transformers import WhisperProcessor, WhisperForConditionalGeneration
import librosa
processor = WhisperProcessor.from_pretrained("yuriyvnv/whisper-tiny-high-mixed-pt")
model = WhisperForConditionalGeneration.from_pretrained("yuriyvnv/whisper-tiny-high-mixed-pt")
model.to("cuda")
audio, sr = librosa.load("path/to/portuguese_audio.wav", sr=16000)
input_features = processor(audio, sampling_rate=16000, return_tensors="pt").input_features.to("cuda")
predicted_ids = model.generate(input_features)
transcription = processor.batch_decode(predicted_ids, skip_special_tokens=True)[0]
print(transcription)
Specifying Language
model.generation_config.language = "pt"
model.generation_config.task = "transcribe"
When to Use This Model
This model is ideal when:
- Best Tiny accuracy needed: 29.33% WER (best among Tiny configurations)
- Resource-constrained deployment: 39M parameters for edge devices
- Cross-domain robustness for Tiny: Best MLS performance (44.18%)
- Quality-filtered augmentation available: Have WAVe-scored synthetic data
Consider alternatives based on your needs:
- whisper-tiny-cv-only-pt: Simpler setup, only 1.39% worse
- whisper-small-cv-only-pt: Better accuracy (13.87% WER)
- whisper-large-v3-high-mixed-pt: Best overall (7.94% WER)
Research Implications
This model demonstrates an important finding:
High-quality filtering is necessary but not sufficient for smaller models.
For Tiny models:
- Quality filtering (q ≥ 0.8) is the only configuration that helps
- Mid-high quality (q ≥ 0.5) actually hurts performance vs baseline
- Unfiltered data provides worse results than strict filtering
- The improvement is marginal regardless of filtering quality
Recommendation: For resource-constrained deployments, the baseline CV-only model may be more practical given the marginal 1.39% improvement doesn't justify the additional preprocessing complexity.
Limitations
- Lower accuracy than larger models: 29.33% vs 7.94% (Large-v3)
- Marginal improvement over baseline: Only 1.39 percentage points
- Limited capacity: Cannot fully leverage synthetic data benefits
- Domain specificity: Optimized for general Portuguese
- Dialect coverage: Performance may vary across Portuguese regional variants
Citation
This model is part of research on WAVe (Word-Aligned Verification) for synthetic speech quality assessment. While the WAVe methodology paper is currently under review, please cite our previous work that motivated this research:
@article{perezhohin2024enhancing,
title={Enhancing Automatic Speech Recognition: Effects of Semantic Audio Filtering on Models Performance},
author={Perezhohin, Yuriy and Santos, Tiago and Costa, Victor and Peres, Fernando and Castelli, Mauro},
journal={IEEE Access},
year={2024},
publisher={IEEE}
}
References
- Base Model: openai/whisper-tiny
- Training Data (Real): mozilla-foundation/common_voice_17_0
- Training Data (Synthetic): yuriyvnv/synthetic_transcript_pt
- Whisper Paper: Robust Speech Recognition via Large-Scale Weak Supervision
- Motivating Research: Enhancing ASR with Semantic Audio Filtering (IEEE Access 2024)
License
Apache 2.0
- Downloads last month
- 19
Model tree for yuriyvnv/whisper-tiny-high-mixed-pt
Base model
openai/whisper-tinyDatasets used to train yuriyvnv/whisper-tiny-high-mixed-pt
Collection including yuriyvnv/whisper-tiny-high-mixed-pt
Evaluation results
- Test WER on Common Voice 17.0 (Portuguese)test set self-reported29.330
- Test WER (MLS) on Multilingual LibriSpeech (Portuguese)test set self-reported44.180