Pseudo-Labels as Rewards, Not Targets: Group-Relative Policy Optimization for Semi-Supervised ASR
Authors: Shashi Kumar, Yanis Labrak, Sergio Burdisso, Esaú Villatoro-Tello, Petr Motlicek, Kadri Hacioglu, Andreas Stolcke
Organizations: Idiap Research Institute, Martigny, Switzerland · EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland · Brno University of Technology, Czech Republic · Uniphore, U.S.A.
Adapting ASR to a domain with only untranscribed audio typically relies on pseudo-labeling, a strong teacher transcribes the audio and a student is fine-tuned on it. Because supervised fine-tuning (SFT) treats every pseudo-label token as a target, the student inherits the teacher's errors. We show that using the same pseudo-labels as a reward reference for Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) is more robust to label noise. In the banking domain, GRPO yields 29.3% to 56.2% relative WER improvements over SFT on Whisper-generated labels, and the advantage holds across four Whisper sizes, four teacher families, three domains and four languages. While SFT reproduces almost 100% of teacher errors verbatim, GRPO passes through only 27%. Rollout statistics explain why, erroneous pseudo-label words rarely appear in on-policy rollouts, so group-relative advantages stay aligned with the clean transcript, whereas SFT forces them into the policy's support and collapses the reward variance GRPO relies on.
Figures & tables
PL Source
Method
WER
CER
INS/DEL/SUB
LS960 (student)
SFT
66.44
46.73
42.18/5.68/18.59
Tiny
SFT
32.11
23.71
15.17/4.91/12.03
GRPO
14.06
10.68
1.87/5.69/6.49
SFT → GRPO
22.77
16.71
6.20/5.77/10.80
Small
SFT
20.23
15.64
7.95/4.00/8.28
GRPO
12.71
9.64
1.95/4.84/5.91
Table 1: Performance on the banking test set of DefinedAI. Students are trained on pseudo-labels from four Whisper teachers, from weakest to strongest, or on gold transcripts as a topline.
Teacher
SFT
GRPO
SFT → GRPO
Qwen3 ASR 1.7B
13.83
11.35
13.41
Phi-4 Multimodal IT
14.34
11.81
14.76
Audio Flamingo 3
14.96
11.83
14.32
Table 2: Performance (%WER) on the banking test set of DefinedAI with pseudo-labels from three additional teacher families.
Gold labels
Pseudo-labels
Domain
Method
WER
CER
WER
CER
Healthcare
SFT
12.28
8.40
18.72
14.32
GRPO
12.60
8.39
14.64
10.91
Insurance
SFT
14.02
10.27
19.59
15.53
GRPO
14.35
10.24
15.70
12.12
Table 3: Performance on the DefinedAI healthcare and insurance test sets. Pseudo-labels come from Whisper Large-V3, and gold-label results serve as a topline.
Gold labels
Pseudo-labels
Language
SFT
SFT → GRPO
SFT
SFT → GRPO
Hindi
27.01
28.26
24.27
22.94
Hebrew
46.40
37.33
40.03
36.89
Vietnamese
57.64
51.02
58.78
49.92
Serbian
34.31
30.68
35.01
30.17
Table 4: CER (%) on the Common Voice 26 test sets for four low-resource languages, each with under 6 h of training audio. Pseudo-labels come from Whisper Large-V3. CER is used instead of WER because these scripts are non-Latin or heavily diacritized. Direct GRPO is omitted because the English-trained student model cannot produce the target scripts (Section 4 ).
Figure 1: Fraction of erroneous pseudo-label (PL) words that the student reproduces verbatim in its final output, as a function of the number of word errors in the utterance’s pseudo-label.
Figure 2: Rollout statistics as a function of the number of PL word errors per utterance. Left: fraction of the G=4 rollouts per utterance that contain the erroneous PL word. Right: within-group standard deviation of the reward across the G=4 rollouts.
LLM-based ASR adapted to regulated domains such as banking is bottlenecked by privacy: real speech is costly and legally constrained to collect, making synthetic text-to-speech (TTS) an attractive substitute. Yet synthetic speech stays acoustically mismatched with real recordings, and work on this gap has stayed within supervised fine-tuning (SFT). We instead turn to reinforcement learning, and show that Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) extracts far more from the same synthetic speech than SFT. Synthetic-only adaptation of the model with GRPO, a critic-free method rewarding low-WER hypotheses, reduces WER by 40% relative to SFT (36.71%→22.09%), and an SFT-then-GRPO combination pushes this further to 45%. We trace the gain to behavior rather than representation: GRPO reduces insertion errors by improving stopping calibration and speech-to-text alignment by better anchoring attention to audio, leaving early-layer representations intact. When synthetic speech is the main resource, reinforcement learning should be preferred over supervised fine-tuning.
Shashi Kumar, Yanis Labrak, Hasindri Watawana +5
Idiap Research Institute, Martigny, Switzerland · EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland · Uniphore, U.S.A. +1
Autoregressive encoder-decoder speech recognition models trained with teacher forcing can suffer from exposure bias, limiting their ability to recover from their own prediction errors at inference time. Recent work has shown that reinforcement learning with Group Relative Policy Optimisation (GRPO) improves speech recognition in major languages with LLM-based models. We extend this line of work to smaller, non-LLM encoder-decoder ASR models, using Whisper-large-v3 as a case study across 51 African languages. The benefits of this approach are most pronounced when training data is scarce or when input audio is noisy or degraded. Our resulting model, SunflowerASR, achieves the best published macro-averaged WER on the AfriVox-v2 (0.227) and SimbaBench (0.372) benchmarks, and is publicly available.
Tim Wenjie Hu, Evelyn Nafula Ouma, Benjamin Akera +1
Pretrained ASR systems perform poorly on noisy Broadcast Police Communication (BPC), hindering efforts to understand police decision-making. Pseudo-labeling offers an unsupervised path to improve ASR without expensive human labels, but the efficacy of this approach on very noisy domains is not known. In this work, we systematically assess the opportunities and limits of pseudo-labeling to adapt foundation ASR models (Whisper and Qwen3-ASR) to noisy BPC domain corpora from Baltimore and Chicago. We demonstrate that existing internal confidence metrics (log-probabilities and STAR scores) fail to distinguish between high and low quality BPC pseudo-labels, and we introduce an external LLM-as-a-judge filtering paradigm that leverages parametric knowledge to discard contextually implausible transcripts. Our LLM-judging filters more aggressively than internal metrics and significantly reduces WER of the pseudo-labeled training sets across the Baltimore and Chicago BPC corpora, though a substantial gap remains relative to an oracle filter. We also introduce a new cross-model pseudo-labeling paradigm where one model is finetuned with pseudo-labels from the other, and we identify this method as a promising direction for future pseudo-labeling work.
Kaavya Chaparala, Su Huang, Stephen L. Morgan +2
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA · Providence College, Providence, USA