Forced alignment evaluation typically requires manually annotated timestamps, limiting large-scale and multilingual analysis. We introduce two corpus-level metrics based on self-supervised (SSL) speech representations for reference-free forced alignment evaluation: Phoneme-Cluster Mutual Information (PCMI) and Word Acoustic Consistency Score (WACS). PCMI measures agreement between aligned phoneme labels and clusters induced from SSL-speech representations, while WACS measures consistency of repeated word realizations using dynamic time warping similarity between word representation sequences. Using both random and systematic perturbations, we show that PCMI and WACS degrade consistently under alignment perturbations. We further analyze the metrics across multiple alignment systems on 85 languages from FLEURS, validate them against manually annotated alignments from 45 languages in DoReCo, and evaluate them on two phonologically complex low-resource languages. The metrics effectively separate high- and low-quality alignments and correlate strongly with timestamp-based alignment quality measures. Our results demonstrate that SSL-speech representations enable scalable, reference-free forced alignment evaluation. The metrics are available as an open-source Python package at https://github.com/mahesh-ak/forced-aligner-metrics.
Figures & tables
Emb.
Alignment model
#Langs
PCMI ↑
WACS ↑
MMS
Baseline
85
0.09 ± 0.02
0.02 ± 0.01
MFA
82
0.25 ± 0.11
0.14 ± 0.08
MMS-300m-IPA*
85
0.24 ± 0.03
0.19 ± 0.02
Wav2Vec2-IPA*
85
0.24 ± 0.03
0.19 ± 0.03
Qwen3-FA
10
-
0.21 ± 0.02
XLSR
Baseline
85
0.09 ± 0.02
0.02 ± 0.01
Table 1: Multilingual evaluation of forced alignment using PCMI and WACS across 85 languages from FLEURS dataset. Emb. denotes representation model used. *Trained in this work.
Figure 1: Behavior of PCMI and WACS under random and systematic perturbations of Buckeye alignments using MMS-300M and MFCC representations. Curves show mean scores over 5 random perturbation samples, with shaded regions denoting standard deviation.
Figure 2: Layer-wise behavior of PCMI and WACS under increasing perturbation severity using MMS (left) and XLSR (right) representations. Middle transformer layers provide the strongest separation between clean and perturbed alignments, while later layers exhibit reduced sensitivity.
FLEURS
DoReCo
Family
#
Family
#
Family
#
Indo-European
41
Austronesian
7
Mayan
1
Niger-Congo
9
Sino-Tibetan
4
Mixe-Zoque
1
Afroasiatic
7
Indo-European
3
Nilo-Saharan
1
Austronesian
5
Niger-Congo
3
Pama-Nyungan
1
Turkic
5
Afroasiatic
2
Pano-Tacanan
1
Table 2: Language family distributions in the multilingual evaluation datasets — FLEURS (85 languages) and DoReCo (45 languages).
Figure 3: Distribution of PCMI (left) and WACS (right) across multilingual alignments on FLEURS. The top row uses MMS representations while the bottom row uses XLSR representations. MFA exhibits a clear bimodal structure corresponding to successful and failed alignments, while CTC-based aligners produce substantially more stable distributions across languages. * Trained in this work.
Embedding
Metric Pair
Pearson’s r
p-value
MMS
PCMI vs AAS
-0.7769
<0.001∗∗∗
WACS vs AAS
-0.6257
<0.001∗∗∗
XLSR
PCMI vs AAS
-0.7761
<0.001∗∗∗
WACS vs AAS
-0.6686
<0.001∗∗∗
Table 3: Pearson correlation between reference-free metrics (PCMI, WACS) and alignment quality measured by AAS on the 45-language DoReCo evaluation set. Lower AAS indicates better alignment quality.
Aligner
Embedding
PCMI
WACS
MMS-300M-IPA*
MMS
-0.161 / -0.137
-0.294 / -0.308
XLSR
-0.092 / -0.050
-0.355 / -0.363
Wav2Vec2-IPA*
MMS
-0.008 / -0.073
-0.027 / -0.111
XLSR
-0.001 / -0.108
-0.152 / -0.212
MMS-300M-DORECO*
MMS
-0.200 / -0.225
-0.259 / -0.237
XLSR
-0.225 / -0.214
-0.261 / -0.230
Table 4: Correlation between ASR error rates (WER, CER) and alignment metrics (PCMI, WACS). Values are Pearson/Spearman correlations. * trained in this work
Language
Aligner
AAS ↓
MMS
XLSR
PCMI ↑
WACS ↑
PCMI ↑
WACS ↑
Archi
Gold
0.0
–
0.225
–
0.220
CTC-IPA-Archi
88.5
0.306
0.203
0.307
0.194
CTC-IPA-Archi - SIL
46.3
0.319
0.215
0.330
0.215
Baseline
85.8
0.204
0.112
0.203
0.102
Rutul
Gold
0.0
–
0.182
–
0.182
Table 5: Evaluation against manually annotated alignments for Archi and Rutul. Lower AAS is better, while higher PCMI and WACS are better.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 4: Behavior of PCMI under varying numbers of K-means clusters and increasing perturbation severity using MMS (left) and XLSR (right) representations. The metric resolution, measured as the gap between clean and severely perturbed alignments, remains stable over cluster counts 25 – 100 .
Figure 5: Distribution of PCMI (top row), WACS (middle) and AAS (bottom) across multilingual alignments on DoReCo corpus. The left column uses MMS representations while the right uses XLSR representations. * Trained in this work.
Language
ISO-1
ISO-3
Family
Subfamily
Division
Train
Dev
Test
G2P
Afrikaans
af
afr
Indo-European
Germanic
West
1032
198
264
epitran
Amharic
am
amh
Afroasiatic
Semitic
South
3163
223
516
epitran
Arabic
ar
ara
Afroasiatic
Semitic
Central
2104
295
428
epitran
Asturian
-
ast
Indo-European
Romance
West
2511
398
946
xpf
Azerbaijani
az
aze
Turkic
Oghuz
-
2665
400
923
epitran
Belarusian
be
bel
Indo-European
Slavic
East
2433
408
967
xpf
Appendix
Table 6: Languages from FLEURS ( Conneau et al., 2023 ) used in multilingual evaluation.
Language
ISO-3
Family
Subfamily
Division
Train
Dev
Test
Source
Anal
anm
Sino-Tibetan
Tibeto-Burman
Kuki-Chin
1588
227
453
Ozerov (2024)
Yali (Apahapsili)
na
Trans-New Guinea
Dani
-
1057
151
302
Riesberg (2024)
Arapaho
arp
Algic
Algonquian
-
782
112
223
Cowell (2024)
Baïnounk Gubëeher
bab
Niger-Congo
West-Atlantic
-
1315
188
376
Cobbinah (2024)
Beja
bej
Afroasiatic
Cushitic
North
3172
453
906
Vanhove (2024)
Bora
boa
Boran
-
-
733
105
209
Seifart (2024a)
Appendix
Table 7: DoReCo ( Seifart et al., 2024 ) languages used for multilingual validation.
Language
N
WER ↓
CER ↓
MMS-IPA*
W2V2-IPA*
MMS-IPA*
W2V2-IPA*
Afrikaans
264
0.576
0.852
0.190
0.323
Amharic
516
0.638
0.866
0.124
0.208
Arabic
428
0.526
0.927
0.141
0.308
Asturian
946
0.370
0.694
0.086
0.168
Azerbaijani
923
0.509
0.839
0.113
0.223
Appendix
Table 8: Language-wise multilingual ASR performance on FLEURS. N denotes sizes of test splits. MMS-IPA* and W2V2-IPA* are same as MMS-300M-IPA* and Wav2Vec2-IPA* respectively. * Trained in this work.
Language
N
WER ↓
CER ↓
Anal
453
0.979
0.454
Arapaho
223
1.007
0.630
Asimjeeg Datooga
325
0.989
0.356
Baïnounk Gubëeher
376
0.957
0.366
Beja
906
0.975
0.322
Bora
209
0.998
0.399
Appendix
Table 9: Language-wise ASR performance on DoReCo. Scores are reported for MMS-300M-DORECO*. N denotes sizes of test splits
Language
MMS
XLSR
Base
MFA
MMS-IPA*
W2V2-IPA*
Base
MFA
MMS-IPA*
W2V2-IPA*
Afrikaans
0.093
0.112
0.221
0.226
0.101
0.105
0.218
0.215
Amharic
0.103
0.122
0.258
0.251
0.108
0.120
0.249
0.234
Arabic
0.114
0.316
0.254
0.254
0.107
0.281
0.244
0.232
Asturian
0.091
0.117
0.223
0.219
0.096
0.106
0.199
0.203
Azerbaijani
0.071
0.124
0.228
0.243
0.076
0.126
0.227
0.220
Appendix
Table 10: Language-wise multilingual PCMI scores on FLEURS. Higher values are better. MMS-IPA* and W2V2-IPA* are same as MMS-300M-IPA* and Wav2Vec2-IPA* respectively. * Trained in this work.
Language
MMS
XLSR
Base
MFA
MMS-IPA*
W2V2-IPA*
Qwen3-FA
Base
MFA
MMS-IPA*
W2V2-IPA*
Qwen3-FA
Afrikaans
0.008
0.041
0.181
0.173
-
0.008
0.025
0.161
0.159
-
Amharic
0.056
0.044
0.219
0.225
-
0.053
0.044
0.198
0.198
-
Arabic
0.041
0.208
0.207
0.206
-
0.034
0.185
0.177
0.178
-
Asturian
0.032
0.052
0.186
0.182
-
0.023
0.053
0.172
0.172
-
Azerbaijani
0.026
0.031
0.220
0.220
-
0.032
0.033
0.195
0.192
-
Appendix
Table 11: Language-wise multilingual WACS scores on FLEURS. Higher values are better. MMS-IPA* and W2V2-IPA* are same as MMS-300M-IPA* and Wav2Vec2-IPA* respectively. * Trained in this work.
Language
MMS
XLSR
Base
MMS-DORECO*
MMS-DORECO*-SIL
Gold
Base
MMS-DORECO*
MMS-DORECO*-SIL
Gold
Anal
0.133
0.209
0.206
0.330
0.122
0.197
0.195
0.316
Yali (Apahapsili)
0.127
0.196
0.193
0.263
0.125
0.184
0.184
0.248
Arapaho
0.075
0.192
0.210
0.287
0.072
0.193
0.204
0.292
Baïnounk Gubëeher
0.097
0.185
0.194
0.301
0.098
0.182
0.193
0.308
Beja
0.228
0.284
0.279
0.386
0.217
0.270
0.278
0.363
Appendix
Table 12: Language-wise multilingual PCMI scores on DoReCo. Higher values are better. * Trained in this work.
Language
MMS
XLSR
Base
MMS-DORECO*
MMS-DORECO*-SIL
Gold
Base
MMS-DORECO*
MMS-DORECO*-SIL
Gold
Anal
0.042
0.091
0.097
0.104
0.046
0.096
0.095
0.105
Yali (Apahapsili)
0.049
0.084
0.085
0.083
0.053
0.095
0.101
0.111
Arapaho
0.071
0.100
0.116
0.136
0.072
0.115
0.123
0.151
Baïnounk Gubëeher
0.037
0.092
0.102
0.114
0.038
0.093
0.097
0.114
Beja
0.084
0.104
0.092
0.111
0.083
0.118
0.119
0.127
Appendix
Table 13: Language-wise multilingual WACS scores on DoReCo. Higher values are better. * Trained in this work.
Language
Base
MMS-DORECO*
MMS-DORECO*-SIL
Gold
Anal
143.4
81.8
79.4
0.0
Yali (Apahapsili)
91.6
63.6
62.8
0.0
Arapaho
529.8
298.2
250.1
0.0
Baïnounk Gubëeher
172.3
101.9
92.4
0.0
Beja
57.7
52.8
53.1
0.0
Bora
426.1
178.0
171.2
0.0
Appendix
Table 14: Language-wise multilingual AAS scores on DoReCo. Lower values are better. * Trained in this work.
Aligner
Metric
MMS
XLSR
Mean
Std
Min
Max
Mean
Std
Min
Max
Baseline (FLEURS)
PCMI
0.091
0.017
0.048
0.148
0.093
0.016
0.053
0.148
Mean cluster purity
0.135
0.022
0.083
0.183
0.138
0.026
0.081
0.194
Std cluster purity
0.140
0.041
0.036
0.226
0.146
0.049
0.047
0.270
Cluster entropy
3.834
0.024
3.750
3.875
3.853
0.014
3.811
3.887
Norm. cluster entropy
0.980
0.006
0.959
0.991
0.985
0.004
0.974
0.994
Appendix
Table 15: Multilingual statistics across aligners and embedding models. * Trained in this work.
Reference-free evaluation measures AI outputs or models without relying on gold answers, using source-grounded checks, learned judges, or intrinsic signals.
We present a method for accurate multilingual word-level forced alignment, consisting of an alignment encoder and a learned alignment decoder. The encoder integrates two representations: one from the Massively Multilingual Speech (MMS) model and another from a self-supervised phoneme boundary detector (UnSupSeg). It learns to fuse them and to estimate word-boundary probabilities over long temporal contexts. The alignment decoder is a learned dynamic programming that combines encoder outputs with segmental features over the MMS and UnSupSeg representations to infer final word boundaries. Trained iteratively on TIMIT and Buckeye, the proposed approach outperforms Montreal Forced Aligner (MFA) and MMS-based alignment on both datasets. On unseen languages (Dutch, German, and Hebrew), the proposed model achieves performance consistently better than or on par with existing alignment approaches, indicating its potential to scale to 1100+ languages supported by MMS without further training.
Roy Weber, Meidan Zehavi, Rotem Rousso +1
Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, 3200003, Israel
Word-level forced alignment estimates when each transcript word occurs in an audio recording. It underpins text-based media editing, subtitling, speech-data curation, and phonetic analysis. Existing evaluations understate the difficulty of forced alignment by relying on short, clean speech, perfect transcripts, and metrics that obscure consequential alignment errors. In contrast, real-world media and data-processing pipelines operate on long and diverse recordings. Additionally, forced aligners often operate on error-prone automatic speech recognition (ASR) output. We address these gaps with improved evaluation metrics, a scoring protocol for real ASR transcripts, and AlignBench, a benchmark spanning diverse speaker, acoustic, and text conditions. We further introduce FuseAlign, a transformer-based aligner trained on large-scale pseudo-labeled speech with online label correction. FuseAlign performs joint contextualization of audio and text for the localization of coarse words. The model then refines boundaries at millisecond resolution and detects missing transcript words in the audio without lexicon-based or Viterbi decoding. On AlignBench, FuseAlign substantially outperforms all baselines and remains robust under real ASR transcripts. Ablations show that convolutional upsampling and EMA-snapshot label correction matter more than model properties such as parameter count.
Phonetic forced alignment is a key technique in phonetic research, yet existing alignment systems lack specialized models for low-resource language varieties. We address this by training text-dependent and text-independent aligners for Chengdu Mandarin using a 17-hour corpus and a custom G2P dictionary. We trained a text-dependent GMM-HMM model (Chengdu-MFA) and fine-tuned a pretrained audio encoder on frame classification with Chengdu-MFA's pseudo label for text-independent alignment (Chengdu-FC). Evaluation on an expert-annotated test set show that both methods significantly outperform Standard Mandarin baselines. Chengdu-MFA reduced average phone boundary differences by 31.8%, while Chengdu-FC achieved a 61.2% reduction. This work establishes a practical bootstrapping pipeline for developing accurate aligners for under-resourced varieties without labor- and time-intensive manual annotation.
Zhiheng Qian, Aini Li, Hai Hu +1
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · City University of Hong Kong · The Hong Kong Polytechnic University +1