Ethio-ASR: Joint Multilingual Speech Recognition and Language Identification for Ethiopian Languages
Authors: Badr M. Abdullah, Israel Abebe Azime, Atnafu Lambebo Tonja, Jesujoba O. Alabi, Abel Mulat Alemu, Eyob G. Hagos, Bontu Fufa Balcha, Mulubrhan A. Nerea, Debela Desalegn Yadeta, Dagnachew Mekonnen Marilign, Amanuel Temesgen Fentahun, Tadesse Kebede, Israel D. Gebru, Michael Melese Woldeyohannis, Walelign Tewabe Sewunetie, Bernd Möbius, Dietrich Klakow
Organizations: Saarland University, Germany · University College London, UK · Ethiopian AI Institute, Ethiopia · HiLCoE, Ethiopia · Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia · University West, Sweden · Haramaya University, Ethiopia · AIMS - Research and Innovation Centre, Rwanda
We present Ethio-ASR, a suite of multilingual CTC-based automatic speech recognition (ASR) models jointly trained on five Ethiopian languages: Amharic, Tigrinya, Oromo, Sidaama, and Wolaytta. These languages belong to the Semitic, Cushitic, and Omotic branches of the Afroasiatic family, and remain severely underrepresented in speech technology despite being spoken by the vast majority of Ethiopia's population. We train our models on the recently released WAXAL corpus using several pre-trained speech encoders and evaluate against strong multilingual baselines, including OmniASR. Our best model achieves an average WER of 30.48% on the WAXAL test set, outperforming the best OmniASR model with substantially fewer parameters. We further provide a comprehensive analysis of gender bias, the contribution of vowel length and consonant gemination to ASR errors, and the training dynamics of multilingual CTC models. Our models and codebase are publicly available to the research community.
Figures & tables
\fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=EnglishFigure 1: Average WER (%) versus model size, where lower WER indicates better performance. Our Ethio-ASR models consistently achieve lower WER across all sizes, outperforming CTC and LLM-based OmniASR baselines.
Language
ISO
Text sample
Script
English
\fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=EnglishENG
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
Latin
Amharic
\fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=EnglishAMH
\fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=EnglishTable 1: UDHR Article 1 across five Ethiopian languages in this paper with English translation as reference.
\fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=EnglishAMH
\fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=EnglishORM
\fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=EnglishTIR
\fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=EnglishSID
\fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=EnglishWAL
Train
M
105.88
85.14
83.20
64.70
76.56
F
83.83
104.75
98.67
127.53
120.75
All
189.71
189.89
181.87
192.23
197.32
Validation
M
6.56
5.04
6.70
4.75
0.02
\fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=EnglishTable 2: Audio duration (hours) by language, split, and gender (M: male voices, F: female voices).
\fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=EnglishFigure 2: Top: Vocabulary growth curves for Ethiopian languages (WAXAL) and English/French (Multilingual LibriSpeech) across corpus sizes up to 1.4M tokens. Bottom: Type-token ratio (TTR) at 800k tokens.
Model
# params
Decoder
Amharic
Tigrinya
Oromo
Wolaytta
Sidaama
Avg.
OpenAI ASR
whisper-small
300M
LM
157.85
174.31
152.99
184.67
182.32
170.43
whisper-medium
786M
LM
195.05
198.06
192.64
247.30
232.91
213.19
whisper-large-v3
1.6B
LM
153.03
166.20
128.65
151.04
144.08
148.60
Meta ASR models
seamless-m4t-v2-large
2B
LM
103.75
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.75
\fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=EnglishTable 3: WER (%, lower is better) on the test split of the WAXAL dataset. Bold indicates the best result per language among multilingual Ethio-ASR models, while underlined indicates best performance among all models.
Model
\fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=EnglishAMH
\fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=EnglishORM
MMS
mms-1b-all
29.78
64.71
OmniASR
omniASR-ctc-300m-v2
34.41
77.53
omniASR-ctc-1b-v2
48.23
68.38
omniASR-ctc-3b-v2
20.59
62.76
\fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=EnglishTable 4: WER (%, lower is better) on FLEURS. Note that FLEURS data was included in the pre-training or fine-tuning data of all baseline models but was not seen by our models during training, making this a zero-shot out-of-domain evaluation for Ethio-ASR.
Model
# params
Acc.
Ethio-ASR ( \fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=Englishafrihubert )
94M
99.92
Ethio-ASR ( \fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=Englishmms-300m )
300M
99.92
Ethio-ASR ( \fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=Englishmms-1b )
1B
99.91
Ethio-ASR ( \fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=Englishw2v-bert-2.0 )
600M
99.83
\fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=EnglishTable 5: Language identification (LID) in accuracy (%).
Model
+LID
–LID
Ethio-ASR ( \fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=Englishafrihubert )
37.93 ± 1.32
38.04 ± 1.23
Ethio-ASR ( \fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=Englishmms-300m )
36.77 ± 1.21
36.15 ± 1.20
Ethio-ASR ( \fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=Englishmms-1b )
33.94 ± 1.24
33.86 ± 1.31
Ethio-ASR ( \fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=Englishw2v-bert-2.0 )
33.02 ± 1.28
33.28 ± 1.28
\fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=EnglishTable 6: WER (%) under +LID and –LID conditions on the WAXAL test set. Values shown as mean ± half-width of the 95% bootstrap CI. No difference is statistically significant ( p>0.45 ).
\fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=EnglishAMH
\fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=EnglishORM
\fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=EnglishSID
\fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=EnglishTIR
Ethio-ASR ( \fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=Englishafrihubert )
Male
32.08
28.34
29.96
56.78
Female
30.02
25.11
33.57
38.24
Δ
+2.06
+3.23
− 3.61
+18.54
Ethio-ASR ( \fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=Englishmms-300m )
Male
32.81
29.17
31.63
58.14
\fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=EnglishTable 7: WER (%) by gender across languages (excluding Wolaytta). Δ = Male − Female; positive values indicate higher error for male speakers.
\fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=EnglishFigure 3: Training dynamics of Ethio-ASR with \fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=Englishw2v-BERT-2.0 and \fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=EnglishMMS-1B as pre-trained models. This analysis reveals that both models learn to transcribe Latin-based scripts before Ge’ez script.
\fontspec_if_language:nTF ENG \addfontfeature Language=EnglishFigure 4: Effect of vowel length and geminate normalization on WER across Oromo, Sidaama, and Wolaytta. Results are shown for four conditions: no normalization, vowel length normalization, geminate normalization, and both normalized.
We evaluate whether compact domain-specialized ASR models can outperform massively multilingual foundation models for conversational African speech across 19 languages in the WAXAL corpus. Fine-tuned edge models achieve a macro-averaged WER of 38.0% compared to 64.9% for the best zero-shot baseline, a 26.9 percentage-point reduction using models 3−40× smaller. Results confirm that domain specialization dominates scale for spontaneous African speech. Cross-domain evaluation shows that fine-tuned models recover usable performance on out-of-distribution (OOD) speech, while zero-shot models regain an advantage when the test domain matches their pretraining distribution. A distributed native-speaker audit across all surveyed languages produces a linguistically-grounded error taxonomy, showing that CTC and autoregressive architectures behave differently across language families. We further show that WER alone misrepresents performance for syllabary-script languages where CER/WER ratios reveal substantially higher character-level accuracy than headline WER suggests. Finally, to contribute to future African ASR research, we release all model weights, fine-tuning and evaluation scripts, and a cleaned WAXAL subset covering all 19 languages.
Victor Tolulope Olufemi, Oreoluwa Babatunde, Ramsey Njema +28
We present DONDO, a family of open, permissively licensed automatic speech recognition (ASR) base models for African languages, built on the w2v-BERT 2.0 self-supervised speech encoder. DONDO comprises twenty-one monolingual models and five multilingual models spanning twenty-seven language varieties across Ghana, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Senegal, Kenya and Zimbabwe. Models are fine-tuned primarily on read speech drawn from religious texts, which offer broad, license-clear and orthographically consistent coverage for languages that otherwise lack transcribed audio. We describe a two-step (and, for one family, three-step) learning-rate-annealed fine-tuning procedure that first adapts a shared multilingual model at a high learning rate and then anneals it to recover, and in several cases surpass, strong monolingual baselines. We further describe a lightweight language-conditioning mechanism that injects a one-hot language identity as a sequence of prefix frames prepended to the acoustic features, allowing a single multilingual checkpoint to be steered to a target language at inference. Across the five multilingual families the annealed models reach average word error rates (WER) of 10-13%, closing most of the gap to monolingual models while covering many languages in a single checkpoint. All models are released on the Hugging Face KhayaAI organisation under the Apache-2.0 license (attribution only) so that others may fine-tune them freely, including for commercial use. We provide a conservative estimate that the languages covered are spoken by on the order of one hundred million first-language speakers, and by substantially more when second-language use is included.
Arabic speech technology has largely focused on Modern Standard Arabic, leaving the living dialects spoken by hundreds of millions under-served. We introduce ALMIEYAR, a culturally grounded ASR benchmark covering 17 Arabic dialects across six families, built entirely from newly recorded speech unseen by existing models. Dialect-community coordinators selected culturally relevant images across 10 topics, and native speakers described them through five structured scenarios, yielding approximately 50 minutes per dialect (13.7 hours total). We benchmark 12 state-of-the-art ASR systems zero-shot, including GPT-4o-transcribe, Voxtral-Mini-4B, Fanar-STT-LF, Whisper, SeamlessM4T-v2, and wav2vec2-based models. GPT-4o-transcribe achieves the lowest overall WER at 35.0%, followed by Voxtral-Mini-4B, Fanar-STT-LF, and Whisper-Large-v3 at 41.1%, 45.9%, and 49.5%, respectively, indicating substantial remaining errors across Arabic dialect communities. Performance varies considerably across dialect groups, with no model performing uniformly best across all groups. WER alone also obscures dialectal ASR behaviour: wav2vec2-based models show large WER/CER gaps, where character-level agreement remains much higher than word-level accuracy, motivating joint WER/CER reporting. ALMIEYAR provides a unified benchmark for culturally grounded Arabic ASR evaluation, including the first published benchmark for Ahwazi Arabic.
Omid Ghahroodi, Anas Madkoor, Dima Faris Al Saudi +37