Organizations: School of Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science, Shaanxi Normal University · iFLYTEK Research, iFLYTEK Co., Ltd. · Key Laboratory of Intelligent Computing and Service Technology for Folk Song, Ministry of Culture and Tourism
Lipreading remains challenging due to the inherent ambiguity of visual speech cues and their sensitivity to head pose and video resolution. In this work, we propose FLARE, a framework for robust visual speech representation learning via cross-modal distillation and joint face-lip modeling. FLARE leverages semantically rich Whisper representations as the acoustic teacher signal, converting them into discrete distillation targets through a random-projection quantizer and pretraining the model with a masked prediction objective. To capture complementary visual information, FLARE employs a dual-stream architecture that jointly processes lip region-of-interest (ROI) and full-face inputs, where the lip stream captures finegrained articulatory motion and the face stream encodes broader facial dynamics. During pretraining, auxiliary audio input is incorporated to facilitate cross-modal alignment, and modality dropout is applied to encourage robust visual-only representations. For downstream lipreading, FLARE serves as a visual encoder coupled with either a lightweight Transformer decoder or an LLM-based decoder. Evaluated on LRS2, LRS3, and the out-of-domain WildVSR benchmark, FLARE achieves strong lipreading performance, with word error rates of 11.7%, 13.2%, and 34.3%, respectively. A progressive design study confirms the contribution of each major component. Further analyses demonstrate that joint face-lip modeling improves robustness under degraded video resolution and large head pose variation, while yielding more phoneme-discriminative visual representations. Code and pretrained models are available at https://github.com/jxzhanggg/FLARE.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of our proposed method.
Method
Encoder size
Ft. criterion
Visual inputs
Ft. data
30h
433h
Base size
AV-HuBERT [ 12 ]
103M
CE
Lip
46.1
34.8
AV-data2vec [ 38 ]
103M
CE
Lip
37.8
32.7
RAVEn [ 14 ]
97M
CE+CTC
Lip
40.2
33.1
VATLM [ 17 ]
103M
CE
Lip
42.6
34.2
Table 1: Lipreading word error rate (WER, %) on the LRS3 test set, compared with previous AV-SSL baselines under the low-resource setting. All methods are pretrained on a combined LRS3 and VoxCeleb2-En corpus.
Method
Encoder size
Visual input
Data size
LLM
LRS2 WER (%)
LRS3 WER (%)
WildVSR WER (%)
WildVSR Rankwer↓
Baselines
TM-Seq2seq [ 8 ]
–
Lip
1391h
✗
48.3
58.9
–
–
ViD 3D [ 49 ]
135M
Lip
90kh
✗
–
17.0
–
–
LP-Conformer [ 50 ]
410M
Lip
100kh
✗
–
12.8
–
–
VTP [ 51 ]
–
Lip
2676h
✗
22.6
30.7
–
–
Auto-AVSR [ 10 ]
186M
Lip
1902h
✗
31.2 ‡
23.5
49.3
53.2
Table 2: Comparison of lipreading WER (%) with state-of-the-art baselines on LRS2, LRS3, and the out-of-domain WildVSR dataset under the high-resource setting. F+L denotes joint face-lip inputs.
Stage
Setting
Ft. data
30h
433h
Cross-modal distillation
Teacher
Distillation method
WavLM+Conformer ASR [ 39 ]
Reg+KLD [ 39 ]
43.7
36.5
Whisper
Reg+KLD [ 39 ]
43.5
36.3
Whisper
Reg
44.3
37.3
AV-HuBERT
K-means [ 12 ]
45.4
37.0
Table 3: Lipreading WER (%) results of the progressive design study. Selected configurations are incorporated into subsequent stages. All models are pretrained for 200k updates to reduce experimental time.
Figure 2: Word error rate (WER) comparison across different video resolutions.
Figure 3: Linear regression analysis of word error rate (WER) as a function of the mean absolute yaw angle.
Figure 4: Pairwise negative-distance matrices of phoneme representations for joint face-lip, face-only, and lip-only inputs. Brighter colors indicate smaller distances.
Figure 5: t-SNE visualization of visual and audio-visual representations across context encoder blocks. “V” and “AV” denote visual-only and audio-visual representations, respectively. The numbers indicate the context encoder depth (0–12).
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Pretraining
Finetuning
Testing
Ft. data
30h
433h
Face
Face
Face
36.3
30.0
Face+Lip
Face
Face
33.8
29.4
Face+Lip
Lip
Lip
38.3
32.6
Face+Lip
Face+Lip
Face
34.1
29.4
Face+Lip
Face+Lip
Lip
38.9
32.9
Appendix
Table 4: Lipreading WER (%) on the LRS3 test set for different visual input configurations in the pretraining, finetuning, and testing phases.
Model
Encoder
Visual input
Encoder GFLOPs
Total GFLOPs
RTF ↓
DistillAV [ 39 ]
Base
Face
60.6
63.2
0.18
Large
Face
92.1
95.1
0.21
FLARE
Base
Face
66.7
69.0
0.19
Large
Face
99.5
102.1
0.23
Base
Face+Lip
119.3
121.6
0.22
Large
Face+Lip
152.3
154.9
0.23
Appendix
Table 5: Computational comparison of different model architectures and visual frontend configurations. GFLOPs and RTF are measured using a 6-second utterance on a single NVIDIA Tesla P40 GPU.
Audio-visual representation learning develops models that connect sound and video for recognition, retrieval, localization, and robust multimodal understanding.
School of Science and Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518172, P.R. China · independent researcher · Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia +1