Can LLM Agents Identify Spoken Dialects like a Linguist?
Authors: Tobias Bystrich, Lukas Hamm, Maria Hassan, Lea Fischbach, Lucie Flek, Akbar Karimi
Organizations: Department of Computer Science, University of Bonn, Germany · Research Center Deutscher Sprachatlas, Marburg University, Germany · Bonn-Aachen International Center for Information Technology, University of Bonn, Germany · Lamarr Institute for Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence, Germany
Due to the scarcity of labeled dialectal speech, audio dialect classification is a challenging task for most languages, including Swiss German. In this work, we explore the ability of large language models (LLMs) as agents in understanding the dialects and whether they can show comparable performance to models such as HuBERT in dialect classification. In addition, we provide an LLM baseline and a human linguist one. Our approach uses phonetic transcriptions produced by ASR systems and combines them with linguistic resources such as dialect feature maps, vowel history, and rules. Our findings indicate that, when linguistic information is provided, the LLM predictions improve. The human baseline shows that automatically generated transcriptions can be beneficial for such classifications, but also presents opportunities for improvement.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Graphic for SwissDial classes and Innerschweiz made with REDE-SprachGIS and dialect region background Besch et al. (2008) .
# Train
Accuracy
# Class predictions
Macro-F1
Accuracy per class
High
Highest
High
Highest
400
66.25%
13
67
61.91%
32.5%
100%
4000
66.25%
39
41
66.25%
65%
67.5%
Table 1: HuBERT baseline for the binary task with best hyperparameters on test data from SwissDial
# Train
Accuracy
Most / least class predictions
Macro-F1
800
11.25%
SG (35)
BE (0)
8.67%
8000
26.25%
BS & GR (20)
LU (2)
22.85%
Table 2: HuBERT baseline for the 8-class task with best hyperparameters on test data from SwissDial. Abbreviations for dialects: St. Gallen (SG), Bern (BE), Basel (BS), Grisons/Graubünden (GR), Lucerne/Luzern (LU).
Setting
AG
BE
BS
GR
LU
SG
VS
ZH
8-class (800)
40%
0%
10%
0%
0%
30%
10%
0%
8-class (8000)
0%
0%
70%
50%
10%
40%
20%
20%
Table 3: Accuracy per class for HuBERT (8-class) with best hyperparameter configuration on test data from SwissDial. Abbreviations for dialects: Aargau (AG), Bern (BE), Basel (BS), Grisons/Graubünden (GR), Lucerne/Luzern (LU), St. Gallen (SG), Valais/Wallis (VS), and Zürich (ZH).
Figure 2: The agentic framework for dialect analysis
Figure 3: Sample transcription with Highest Alemannic features. Orthographic transcription: Wir haben Yvonne Beutler an ihrem letzten Arbeitstag besucht und auf ihre politische Laufbahn zurückgeschaut [ -gelugt ]
Figure 4: HuBERT baseline architecture
lr
Batch
Accuracy
# Class predictions
Macro-F1
Accuracy per class
# High
# Highest
High
Highest
10−3
8
52.5%
61
19
50.99%
70%
35%
16
46.25%
61
19
42.27%
72.5%
20%
32
56.25%
25
55
54.66%
37.5%
75%
64
62.5%
22
58
60.5%
40%
85%
10−4
8
50%
76
4
37.3%
95%
5%
Table 4: Results of hyperparameter search for the HuBERT baseline on test data from SwissDial.
Experiment Configuration
Accuracy (%)
Base Prompt Only (2 runs average)
47.8
Specialized Features Analysis Node
47.5
Vowel & Consonant Analysis Node
55.0
Vowel & Consonant Node + Specialized Features Node (2 runs average, no IPA explanations from GPT)
58.0
Table 5: Accuracy of different LangGraph experiment configurations. We use the best results for comparison with other methods.
Model
Accuracy
# Class predictions
Macro-F1
Accuracy per class
High
Highest
High
Highest
HuBERT
66.3%
39
41
66.3%
65%
67.5%
LLM
47.8%
30
50
47%
35.6%
60%
Human
72.5%
33
46
72.3%
80%
65%
Agentic
58%
23
57
56.3%
37.5%
78.8%
Table 6: Results for the 2-class problem
Figure 5: Alignments between human baseline and GPT models
Dialogue systems based on large language models (LLMs) have advanced significantly in recent years. However, dialectal variation remains a major challenge, particularly for systems that process spoken input. LLM-based speech language models (SLMs), which integrate LLMs with speech processing components, show promise for spoken language tasks, yet their ability to comprehend dialects has not been sufficiently studied. Moreover, it remains unclear how the dialectal understanding of the base LLM affects SLM performance. This study investigates the dialectal robustness of both LLMs and SLMs using Japanese dialects as a test case. We define robustness as the ratio of performance on dialectal versus standard inputs, enabling fair comparisons. Our experiments show that SLM robustness correlates with that of their text-based counterparts. Furthermore, training with dialectal data and fine-tuning the speech encoder each improves robustness in SLMs.
Large language models increasingly understand dialectal English, yet still produce only standard, US-leaning English, leaving dialectal generation, the harder half of the problem, largely unaddressed. We introduce DiaLLM, which continually pretrains three open-weight language model families on the International Corpus of English and applies implicit and explicit post-training paradigms, each combined with three model alignment strategies, giving the first controlled comparison of these components across Australian, Indian, and Northern British English. Our results reveal a robustness-generation gap: benchmarks are shaped by continual pretraining and SFT, while alignment visibly reshapes generation in ways benchmarks do not capture. Explicit variety-targeted adaptation produces output reliably recognised as dialectal and judged more dialectal than broad alignment, yet where human judgement was directly assessed, the method that most aggressively optimises the dialectal reward is not the one judged most dialectal. Independent linguistic analysis corroborates this reward-quality gap, most clearly on two of the three families. No single alignment method dominates, and closing the gap will require richer reward designs and continued investment in dialectal resources. We release all code, checkpoints, and preference datasets.
Jordan Painter, Dipankar Srirag, Adarsh Kappiyath +3
Institute for People-Centred AI, University of Surrey, Surrey, United Kingdom · University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Speech Language Model (SLM) performance often degrades on dialects due to data scarcity. Conventional text-to-speech (TTS) augmentation struggles to cover diverse dialects as it requires a certain amount of real dialect speech. We propose synthesizing pseudo-dialect speech by converting LLM-generated dialect text via a standard-language TTS model, requiring zero real dialect speech. Additionally, we introduce intermediate standard-text prediction during training, acting as semantic normalization for downstream tasks. We evaluate dialect understanding via dialect-to-English speech translation across Japanese, German, and Chinese dialects. Compared to synthetic standard speech baselines, pseudo-dialect augmentation improves scores for Japanese (from 25.38 to 26.24) and German (from 31.57 to 32.47). Furthermore, the intermediate standard-text prediction effectively bridges the semantic gap, boosting performance to 28.26 for Japanese and from 11.67 to 16.37 for Chinese. These results suggest that our approach scales to various languages without requiring speech resources specific to each dialect.