ASR-Style Transcript Normalization Removes Useful Pragmatic Signal for Dialogue Act Classification

# ASR-Style Transcript Normalization Removes Useful Pragmatic Signal for Dialogue Act Classification
Source: [https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934)
Lucky Onyekwelu\-UdokaAffiliation:Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Iowa State University Ames, Iowa, United States lucky@iastate\.eduMd Shafiqul IslamAffiliation:Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Iowa State University Ames, Iowa, United States shafiqul@iastate\.edu

###### Abstract

Automatic speech recognition \(ASR\) pipelines often normalize transcripts by removing filled pauses and punctuation and expanding colloquial forms, potentially discarding cues useful for dialogue act classification\. We evaluate nine transcript conditions across six classifiers \(TF\-IDF logistic regression, RoBERTa, BERT, ALBERT, GPT\-2, and BiLSTM\) and three conversational corpora \(Switchboard, ICSI MRDA, and SLUE\-HVB\), supplemented by multi\-seed experiments, normalization controls, and real\-ASR evaluations\. Across five random seeds, heavy normalization reduces Macro\-F1 in all 15 neural model–corpus combinations under the original preprocessing protocols\. Removal using the original filler and backchannel lexicon consistently degrades performance on MRDA and SLUE\-HVB but produces mixed effects on Switchboard\. Punctuation\-aware TF\-IDF experiments show that punctuation removal reduces Macro\-F1 by 0\.036 on Switchboard and 0\.078 on MRDA, demonstrating that the original linear baseline’s apparent insensitivity resulted from tokenization\. Restricting filler removal toum,uh, andermpreserves degradation on MRDA but largely eliminates the SLUE\-HVB effect, where the original lexicon removes class\-defining backchannel expressions\. These findings demonstrate that normalization effects depend on preprocessing definitions, feature extraction, and conversational context, supporting task\-dependent rather than indiscriminate transcript normalization\.

###### Index Terms:

automatic speech recognition, transcript normalization, dialogue act classification, disfluency, filled pauses

## IIntroduction

ASR transcripts are commonly normalized by dropping filled pauses, removing punctuation, and standardizing colloquial forms\. These changes improve readability, but they can also erase signals that help manage turns and organize discourse\[[1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib2),[2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib3),[3](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib1)\]\. Although disfluencies and recognition errors have been studied, how normalization itself affects dialogue act classification across models and interaction types is still not well characterized\.

We investigate nine transcript conditions across six classifiers \(TF\-IDF logistic regression, RoBERTa, BERT, ALBERT, GPT\-2, and BiLSTM\) and three corpora \(Switchboard, ICSI MRDA, and SLUE\-HVB\), yielding 18 model–corpus combinations\. The main experiments transform reference transcripts, while separate analyses examine recognition errors in real ASR output\. We also assess tokenization, lexicon sensitivity, and random\-seed variability\.

Our main contributions are:

1. 1\.A multi\-model, cross\-corpus evaluation showing consistent Macro\-F1 degradation under heavy normalization across five random seeds, with more variable effects from filler removal\.
2. 2\.A punctuation\-aware TF\-IDF analysis demonstrating that the apparent insensitivity of linear classifiers to punctuation removal results from tokenization rather than model architecture alone\.
3. 3\.A restricted filler\-lexicon analysis showing that degradation persists on MRDA but largely disappears on SLUE\-HVB when class\-defining backchannel tokens are preserved\.
4. 4\.Cluster\-level statistical analyses, real\-ASR evaluations, and selective normalization experiments assessing the robustness and practical implications of transcript preprocessing\.

Our findings show that normalization effects depend on the linguistic cues removed, feature extraction, and conversational setting, supporting task\-dependent rather than indiscriminate transcript preprocessing\.

## IIRelated Work

Disfluencies, filled pauses, and backchannels convey information about hesitation, turn management, and discourse structure\[[1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib2),[2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib3),[4](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib7),[5](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib12),[3](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib1)\]\. Removing these expressions during transcript normalization may therefore eliminate cues useful for downstream pragmatic inference\.

Prior studies have investigated ASR recognition errors and configurable transcription\-noise evaluation\[[6](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib8),[7](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib9),[8](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib10),[9](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib11),[10](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib15),[11](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib13)\]\. However, recognition errors differ from deliberate transcript normalization, which can alter linguistic cues even when transcription is accurate\.

Dialogue act recognition research has examined lexical and conversational cues\[[12](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib4),[13](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib5),[14](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib14)\]\. Zelasko et al\.\[[15](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib16)\]investigated the role of punctuation in transformer\-based dialogue act recognition and segmentation\. Prior research has compared lightweight and transformer\-based architectures for speech emotion classification through systematic ablation studies\[[16](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib26)\]\.

Disfluency studies establish the communicative role of hesitations and backchannels, whereas ASR\-robustness work examines recognition errors and Zelasko et al\. focus on punctuation in dialogue\-act recognition\. These studies do not jointly isolate deliberate filler/backchannel removal, punctuation stripping, and colloquial expansion for dialogue\-act classification across model families and conversational registers\. Our controlled text ablations address this gap with nine conditions, six classifiers, and three corpora, supplemented by tokenizer and lexicon controls, multi\-seed evaluation, and real\-ASR experiments\.

## IIIExperimental Setup

Datasets\.We evaluate three conversational corpora: Switchboard\[[17](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib6)\], ICSI MRDA\[[18](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib17),[19](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib18)\], and SLUE\-HVB\[[20](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib23)\], representing telephone conversations, multi\-party meetings, and scripted call\-center dialogues, respectively\. SLUE\-HVB is multi\-label; approximately 40% of utterances have multiple tags, and we use the release’s first tag as the primary class\. Table[I](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S3.T1)summarizes the datasets after removing labels with fewer than 50 instances in combined train–test counts\. Switchboard uses a conversation\-level 80/20 split, while MRDA and HVB use their release\-defined splits\. The MRDA release describes its canonical partition as meeting\-disjoint, although the reformatted records do not expose meeting identifiers\.

TABLE I:Dataset statistics after rare\-label filtering \(≥50\\geq 50occurrences\)\.aUtterances containingum,uh, orerm; the Switchboard rate is 17,703/43,763 utterances\.

Models\.We evaluate TF\-IDF with logistic regression \(TF\-IDF\+LR\), RoBERTa\-base\[[21](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib20)\], BERT\-base\-cased\[[22](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib19)\], ALBERT\-base\-v2\[[23](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib21)\], GPT\-2\[[24](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib22)\], and BiLSTM\[[25](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib24)\]\. TF\-IDF\+LR uses unigram/bigram features \(min​\_​df=3\\mathrm\{min\\\_df\}=3,max​\_​df=0\.95\\mathrm\{max\\\_df\}=0\.95\) and class\-balanced logistic regression\. Transformers are fine\-tuned for three epochs \(learning rate2×10−52\\times 10^\{\-5\}, batch size 16, maximum length 96\)\. BiLSTM uses 200\-dimensional embeddings, 128 hidden units, and 15 training epochs\. Neural experiments use five seeds while TF\-IDF\+LR is deterministic\. We additionally evaluate a punctuation\-aware, case\-preserving TF\-IDF tokenizer to examine punctuation discarded by the default tokenizer\.

Normalization Conditions\.We evaluate nine conditions:gold\_text\(original transcripts\),norm\_colloq\_only\(colloquial expansion\),rm\_punct\_only\(punctuation removal\),rm\_discourse\_only\(removal oflike/well\),gold\_alpha\_text\(corpus\-specific alphanumeric form\),rm\_fillers\_only\(filler/backchannel lexicon removal\),clean\_light\(lowercasing and removal of non\-alphanumeric characters except apostrophes\),clean\_heavy\(light cleaning, filler removal, and colloquial expansion\), andasr\_noise\(synthetic recognition errors\)\.

Synthetic ASR noise applies token deletion \(8%\), substitution \(8%\), and insertion \(4%\)\. Each main\-grid condition is applied to both training and test transcripts\.

The original filler lexicon containsum,uh,erm,mm,hmm,mhm,uhhuh,uh\-huh, andhuh\. The restricted lexicon retains onlyum,uh, anderm\.

An additionalpragmatic\_normcontrol applies lowercasing and colloquial expansion while preserving fillers, backchannels, and punctuation\. This transformation leaves MRDA unchanged; its reported neural comparisons are single\-seed supplementary controls\.

Normalization implementations have corpus\-specific differences\. Switchboard’s originalclean\_heavyadditionally removeslikeandyouknow, while itsgold\_alpha\_textuses ConvoKit’s provided field, which also removes clitics\. MRDA and HVB instead use regex\-based alphanumeric filtering\. Colloquial normalization changes no Switchboard or MRDA utterances, while punctuation removal and light cleaning leave HVB unchanged\.

As a separate single\-seed sensitivity test, we evaluate a harmonized strict heavy\-normalization condition applying lowercasing, punctuation removal, colloquial expansion, and deletion of onlyum,uh, andermacross all three corpora\.

Real\-ASR Evaluation\.We evaluate Whisper\-base\.en\[[26](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib25)\]under two protocols\. On SLUE\-HVB, models are trained and tested on ASR transcripts \(17\.7%/18\.3% train/test WER\) and compared with gold\-trained/gold\-tested models\. On MRDA, gold\-trained models are compared on gold and ASR test transcripts from a separately reconstructed 60/15 meeting\-disjoint split \(41\.0% WER\), combining recognition errors with train–test transcription mismatch\. Switchboard uses synthetic ASR noise because its audio requires an LDC license\.

Evaluation\.Macro\-F1 is the primary evaluation metric, assigning equal weight to each dialogue\-act class\. Primary neural results are summarized using mean and standard deviation across five seeds\. At the primary seed, paired Macro\-F1 differences are assessed using 2,000 cluster\-bootstrap resamples, with conversations as clusters for Switchboard and calls for HVB\. McNemar’s test assesses paired utterance\-level correctness rather than Macro\-F1, with Bonferroni correction across 36 comparisons; 21 remain significant atα=0\.05/36\\alpha=0\.05/36\. Because utterances within conversations are dependent, McNemar results are supplementary to cluster\-level uncertainty estimates\. Individualpp\-values and complete condition\-level outputs are included in the public repository\.

## IVResults

TABLE II:Macro\-F1 under original, filler\-removed, and heavily normalized transcripts\. Neural results are mean±\\pmstandard deviation over five seeds\. TF\-IDF\+LR is deterministic\. Original corpus\-specific normalization protocols are used\.### IV\-AMulti\-Seed Normalization Effects

Table[II](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S4.T2)reports selected primary conditions across five seeds for the neural models and a deterministic TF\-IDF\+LR baseline\. Under the original preprocessing protocols, heavy normalization reduces Macro\-F1 in all 75 paired seed–model–corpus comparisons\. Filler removal also reduces Macro\-F1 in all 50 neural comparisons on MRDA and SLUE\-HVB but produces mixed effects on Switchboard\. For example, MRDA RoBERTa decreases from 0\.593 to 0\.550 after filler removal and to 0\.485 under heavy normalization\. In contrast, Switchboard BERT improves from 0\.440 to 0\.449 after filler removal but falls to 0\.387 under heavy normalization\. Thus, heavy normalization produces more consistent degradation than filler removal alone\.

The complete primary\-seed nine\-condition grid is available in the repository\. Across its 18 model–corpus combinations, synthetic ASR noise degrades all 18 \(Δ=0\.033\\Delta=0\.033–0\.2250\.225\)\. Punctuation removal and light cleaning each degrade 11 combinations and leave seven unchanged \(Δ=0\\Delta=0–0\.0840\.084for each operation\)\. Colloquial expansion and discourse\-marker removal have mixed, smaller effects \(\|Δ\|≤0\.011\|\\Delta\|\\leq 0\.011\); alphanumeric filtering is model\-sensitive \(Δ=−0\.005\\Delta=\-0\.005–0\.2090\.209\)\. The punctuation\-aware control below explains the default TF\-IDF result\.

### IV\-BPunctuation and Filler\-Lexicon Controls

The original TF\-IDF\+LR baseline appeared insensitive to punctuation removal because its default tokenizer discarded punctuation before feature extraction\. Using a punctuation\-aware, case\-preserving tokenizer, punctuation removal reduces Macro\-F1 by 0\.036 on Switchboard and 0\.078 on MRDA \(Table[III](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S4.T3)\)\. Therefore, the original near\-neutral effect was a tokenization artifact rather than an intrinsic property of linear classifiers\. SLUE\-HVB remains unaffected because its transcripts lack punctuation\.

TABLE III:Punctuation\-removal effects for TF\-IDF\+LR\.Δpunct\\Delta\_\{\\mathrm\{punct\}\}denotes the Macro\-F1 decrease relative to the corresponding gold condition\.We also evaluate a restricted filler lexicon containing onlyum,uh, anderm\. On MRDA, filler\-removal degradation remains positive across all six models \(Δ=0\.015\\Delta=0\.015–0\.0390\.039\), although the proportion of emptied backchannel utterances falls from 43\.1% to 0\.5%\. Across the filtered SLUE\-HVB data, the original lexicon empties 38 of 50 backchannel utterances, whereas the restricted lexicon empties none; only 16 backchannels occur in the held\-out test set\. Accordingly, filler\-removal degradation approaches zero for the four evaluated neural models with non\-anomalous primary\-seed baselines \(Δ=−0\.006\\Delta=\-0\.006to0\.0010\.001\)\.

TABLE IV:Primary\-seed Macro\-F1 degradation under harmonized strict heavy normalization\.Δ=gold−strict\\Delta=\\mathrm\{gold\}\-\\mathrm\{strict\}; positive values indicate degradation\.Table[IV](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S4.T4)reports results under an identical strict heavy\-normalization function\. All six models exhibit Macro\-F1 degradation on Switchboard and MRDA, whereas five of six SLUE\-HVB models change by at most 0\.015\. The exception is GPT\-2, which improves by 0\.049 from an unusually low gold baseline\. All strict\-control results use the primary seed\.

Separately, omitting Switchboard’s extralike/youknowremoval while retaining the nine\-word lexicon changes the normalized text for 17\.7% of utterances\. TF\-IDF\+LR Macro\-F1 changes from 0\.2933 to 0\.2954; corresponding neural reruns are unavailable\.

At the primary seed,pragmatic\_normMacro\-F1 remains within±0\.013\\pm 0\.013of gold across 12 Switchboard and SLUE\-HVB model combinations\. It outperforms heavy normalization in 11 of 12 comparisons, suggesting that mild standardization may preserve performance when discourse cues remain\.

### IV\-CStatistical and Class\-Level Analysis

Five\-seed standard deviations summarize training variability\. Paired cluster\-bootstrap confidence intervals quantify test\-cluster sampling uncertainty at primary seed, not uncertainty in five\-seed means\. Throughout, positiveΔ\\Deltadenotes the Macro\-F1 decrease relative to gold\.

At the primary seed, cluster\-bootstrap 95% confidence intervals for heavy\-normalization Macro\-F1 differences exclude zero for all five neural models on Switchboard and four of five on SLUE\-HVB\. Filler\-removal intervals exclude zero for only ALBERT on Switchboard and four neural models on SLUE\-HVB\. For TF\-IDF\+LR on Switchboard, filler\-removal and heavy\-normalization differences are 0\.011\[0\.003,0\.020\]\[0\.003,0\.020\]and 0\.017\[0\.009,0\.027\]\[0\.009,0\.027\], respectively\. These are nominal 95% intervals without multiplicity adjustment; an F1 decrease alone does not establish statistical significance\. The reformatted primary MRDA records lack meeting identifiers\. On a separate exploratory 60/15 meeting\-disjoint reconstruction, heavy\- normalization intervals exclude zero for four of five neural models, while filler\-only effects are split\-sensitive\.

Utterance\-level McNemar tests provide an additional paired\-correctness comparison but are not tests of Macro\-F1 and do not adjust for conversation clustering; cluster\-bootstrap intervals therefore remain the primary uncertainty evidence\.

TABLE V:Selected class\-level effects of lexicon\-based removal for deterministic TF\-IDF\+LR on held\-out test splits\. P, R, and F1 denote precision, recall, and F1\-score\. BC denotes SLUE\-HVB backchannels\.CorpusClassMetricGoldNo Fill\.SwitchboardbP0\.5580\.436bF10\.4330\.365MRDAfhR0\.4950\.330hR0\.3130\.104SLUE\-HVBBCP0\.3530\.092BCR0\.7500\.750BCF10\.4800\.163Table[V](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S4.T5)shows different class\-level effects across corpora\. On Switchboard, backchannel precision decreases from 0\.558 to 0\.436, with an F1 reduction of 0\.068\. On MRDA, recall decreases for floor holders \(fh\) and holds before answers or agreements \(h\), indicating difficulty recognizing turn\-management dialogue acts\. In contrast, SLUE\-HVB backchannel recall remains at 0\.750, while precision decreases from 0\.353 to 0\.092, reducing F1 from 0\.480 to 0\.163\. Because Macro\-F1 weights this low\-support class equally with the other 15 classes, its large F1 change warrants cautious interpretation\. The restricted\-lexicon analysis indicates that much of this degradation results from deleting class\-defining backchannel expressions\.

### IV\-DReal\-ASR Evaluation

Whisper\-base\.en is evaluated under two protocols\. On SLUE\-HVB, models are trained and tested on Whisper transcripts \(17\.7%/18\.3% train/test WER\)\. Five models exhibit lower Macro\-F1, whereas GPT\-2 improves from 0\.6674 to 0\.6765 at primary seed\. This isolated result does not establish an ASR benefit, especially given its unusually low baseline\.

On MRDA, models trained on gold transcripts are evaluated on Whisper transcripts from 15 held\-out meetings \(WER: 41\.0%\)\. All six models degrade, with Macro\-F1 decreases ranging from 0\.1366 to 0\.2822\. Unlike SLUE\-HVB, this experiment combines recognition errors with train–test transcription mismatch; the effect sizes are therefore not directly comparable\.

## VDiscussion and Conclusion

Our findings show that transcript normalization affects dialogue act classification differently across models, corpora, and preprocessing operations\. Under the original protocols, heavy normalization reduces Macro\-F1 across all five seeds for every neural model–corpus combination, whereas filler removal produces mixed effects on Switchboard but consistent degradation on MRDA and SLUE\-HVB\.

Interpretation of normalization effects\.The punctuation\-aware TF\-IDF control shows that punctuation is predictive when the feature extractor preserves it\. The default TF\-IDF baseline appeared insensitive because its tokenizer discarded punctuation\. Filler\-lexicon controls reveal a different mechanism: on MRDA, degradation persists when removal is restricted toum,uh, anderm, suggesting that these expressions provide useful classification cues\. On SLUE\-HVB, most degradation disappears under the restricted lexicon because the original inventory removes class\-defining backchannel expressions\. Thus, not all performance losses reflect the same type of information removal\.

Robustness and practical implications\.The five\-seed experiments show that heavy\-normalization degradation is more consistent than filler\-removal effects\. Under harmonized strict normalization, degradation persists across all six classifiers on Switchboard and MRDA but is largely absent on SLUE\-HVB, demonstrating sensitivity to corpus characteristics and lexicon definitions\. Single\-seed pragmatic\-normalization controls further suggest that modest text standardization can retain dialogue\-act performance when backchannels and punctuation are preserved\.

Limitations\.The study is limited to three English\-language corpora\. SLUE\-HVB findings concern a first\-tag, single\-label reduction and do not evaluate its full multi\-label dialogue\-act task\. The original Switchboard heavy\-normalization implementation additionally removeslikeandyouknow, and harmonized lexicon experiments use a single seed\. On Switchboard, spaced backchannel expressions such asUh \- huhare partially affected by the strict lexicon, which removesuhbut retainshuh\. Thus, identical normalization rules do not necessarily remove equivalent linguistic cues across corpora\. According to the release\-defined canonical split, the primary MRDA partition is meeting\-disjoint but not speaker\-disjoint; because meeting identifiers are absent from the reformatted records, meeting\-level confidence intervals are unavailable for that primary split\. The alternative MRDA neural comparisons use different training scripts, hyperparameters, and text formatting, preventing controlled attribution of their differences to normalization\. Real\-ASR evaluations use different protocols: matched ASR training/testing on SLUE\-HVB and gold\-trained/ASR\-tested models on MRDA\. The pragmatics\-preserving control uses reference transcripts and does not recover cues already missing from real ASR output\. All reported BiLSTM results use the corrected empty\-input pooling implementation\.

Overall, aggressive transcript normalization can degrade dialogue act classification, but the magnitude and mechanism depend on feature extraction, lexicon design, and conversational setting\. These findings support selective, task\-dependent normalization rather than indiscriminate transcript cleaning\. Future work will examine multi\-seed harmonized normalization, matched ASR training on MRDA, and additional conversational domains\.

## References

- \[1\]\(2002\)Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking\.Cognition84\(1\),pp\. 73–111\.External Links:ISSN 0010\-0277,[Document](https://dx.doi.org/https%3A//doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277%2802%2900017-3),[Link](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027702000173)Cited by:[§I](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S1.p1.1),[§II](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S2.p1.1)\.
- \[2\]M\. Corley and O\. W\. Stewart\(2008\)Hesitation disfluencies in spontaneous speech: the meaning of um\.Language and Linguistics Compass2\(4\),pp\. 589–602\.External Links:[Document](https://dx.doi.org/https%3A//doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00068.x),[Link](https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00068.x),https://compass\.onlinelibrary\.wiley\.com/doi/pdf/10\.1111/j\.1749\-818X\.2008\.00068\.xCited by:[§I](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S1.p1.1),[§II](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S2.p1.1)\.
- \[3\]H\. H\. Clark and E\. F\. Schaefer\(1989\)Contributing to discourse\.Cognitive Science13\(2\),pp\. 259–294\.External Links:ISSN 0364\-0213,[Document](https://dx.doi.org/https%3A//doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213%2889%2990008-6),[Link](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0364021389900086)Cited by:[§I](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S1.p1.1),[§II](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S2.p1.1)\.
- \[4\]E\. Shriberg\(1999\)Phonetic consequences of speech disfluency\.External Links:[Link](https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14273237)Cited by:[§II](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S2.p1.1)\.
- \[5\]J\. Ginzburg, R\. Fernández, and S\. David\(2014\)Disfluencies as intra\-utterance dialogue moves\.Semantics and Pragmatics7\(9\),pp\. 1–64\.External Links:[Link](https://semprag.org/index.php/sp/article/view/sp.7.9/pdfsp79),[Document](https://dx.doi.org/http%3A//dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.9)Cited by:[§II](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S2.p1.1)\.
- \[6\]T\. Cui, J\. Xiao, L\. Li, X\. Jiang, and Q\. Liu\(2021\)An approach to improve robustness of nlp systems against asr errors\.ArXivabs/2103\.13610\.External Links:[Link](https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:232352551)Cited by:[§II](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S2.p2.1)\.
- \[7\]Y\. Nechaev, W\. Ruan, and I\. Kiss\(2021\)Towards nlu model robustness to asr errors at scale\.External Links:[Link](https://www.amazon.science/publications/towards-nlu-model-robustness-to-asr-errors-at-scale)Cited by:[§II](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S2.p2.1)\.
- \[8\]C\. Li, W\. Xu, T\. Cohen, and S\. Pakhomov\(2024\)Useful blunders: can automated speech recognition errors improve downstream dementia classification?\.Journal of Biomedical Informatics150,pp\. 104598\.External Links:ISSN 1532\-0464,[Document](https://dx.doi.org/https%3A//doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2024.104598),[Link](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532046424000169)Cited by:[§II](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S2.p2.1)\.
- \[9\]M\. Kubis, P\. Skórzewski, M\. Sowański, and T\. Ziętkiewicz\(2023\)Back transcription as a method for evaluating robustness of natural language understanding models to speech recognition errors\.InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing,H\. Bouamor, J\. Pino, and K\. Bali \(Eds\.\),Singapore,pp\. 11824–11835\.External Links:[Link](https://aclanthology.org/2023.emnlp-main.724/),[Document](https://dx.doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.724)Cited by:[§II](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S2.p2.1)\.
- \[10\]O\. Shapira, S\. E\. Chazan, and A\. D\. Cohen\(2025\)Measuring the effect of transcription noise on downstream language understanding tasks\.InProceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics \(Volume 1: Long Papers\),W\. Che, J\. Nabende, E\. Shutova, and M\. T\. Pilehvar \(Eds\.\),Vienna, Austria,pp\. 29978–30004\.External Links:[Link](https://aclanthology.org/2025.acl-long.1449/),[Document](https://dx.doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1449),ISBN 979\-8\-89176\-251\-0Cited by:[§II](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S2.p2.1)\.
- \[11\]M\. Zusag, L\. Wagner, and B\. Thallinger\(2024\)CrisperWhisper: Accurate Timestamps on Verbatim Speech Transcriptions\.InInterspeech 2024,pp\. 1265–1269\.External Links:[Document](https://dx.doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2024-731),ISSN 2958\-1796Cited by:[§II](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S2.p2.1)\.
- \[12\]D\. Jurafsky, E\. Shriberg, and D\. Biasca\(1997\)Switchboard SWBD\-DAMSL shallow\-discourse\-function annotation coders manual, draft 13\.Technical reportTechnical Report97\-02,University of Colorado, Boulder Institute of Cognitive Science\.External Links:[Link](https://web.stanford.edu/~jurafsky/ws97/manual.august1.html)Cited by:[§II](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S2.p3.1)\.
- \[13\]M\. G\. Core and J\. F\. Allen\(1997\)Coding dialogs with the damsl annotation scheme\.External Links:[Link](https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:18744825)Cited by:[§II](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S2.p3.1)\.
- \[14\]A\. Stolcke, K\. Ries, N\. Coccaro, E\. Shriberg, R\. Bates, D\. Jurafsky, P\. Taylor, R\. Martin, C\. Van Ess\-Dykema, and M\. Meteer\(2000\)Dialogue act modeling for automatic tagging and recognition of conversational speech\.Computational Linguistics26\(3\),pp\. 339–374\.External Links:[Link](https://aclanthology.org/J00-3003/)Cited by:[§II](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S2.p3.1)\.
- \[15\]P\. Żelasko, R\. Pappagari, and N\. Dehak\(2021\)What helps transformers recognize conversational structure? importance of context, punctuation, and labels in dialog act recognition\.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics9,pp\. 1163–1179\.External Links:[Link](https://aclanthology.org/2021.tacl-1.69/),[Document](https://dx.doi.org/10.1162/tacl%5Fa%5F00420)Cited by:[§II](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S2.p3.1)\.
- \[16\]L\. Onyekwelu\-Udoka, M\. S\. Islam, and M\. S\. Hasan\(2025\)Emotion detection in speech using lightweight and transformer\-based models: a comparative and ablation study\.In2025 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Computing, Applications and Systems \(COMPAS\),pp\. 1–6\.Cited by:[§II](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S2.p3.1)\.
- \[17\]J\. P\. Chang, C\. Chiam, L\. Fu, A\. Wang, J\. Zhang, and C\. Danescu\-Niculescu\-Mizil\(2020\)ConvoKit: a toolkit for the analysis of conversations\.InProceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue,1st virtual meeting,pp\. 57–60\.External Links:[Document](https://dx.doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.sigdial-1.8),[Link](https://aclanthology.org/2020.sigdial-1.8/)Cited by:[§III](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S3.p1.1)\.
- \[18\]E\. Shriberg, R\. Dhillon, S\. Bhagat, J\. Ang, and H\. Carvey\(2004\)The ICSI meeting recorder dialog act \(MRDA\) corpus\.InProceedings of the 5th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue at HLT\-NAACL 2004,Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA,pp\. 97–100\.External Links:[Link](https://aclanthology.org/W04-2319/)Cited by:[§III](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S3.p1.1),[19](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib18)\.
- \[19\]Wylupek\(2025\)MRDA corpus \(HuggingFace reformatting of the ICSI MRDA corpus\)\.Note:[https://huggingface\.co/datasets/wylupek/mrda\-corpus](https://huggingface.co/datasets/wylupek/mrda-corpus)Reformatted release of\[[18](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#bib.bib17)\]for use with the HuggingFacedatasetslibrary; accessed July 2026Cited by:[§III](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S3.p1.1)\.
- \[20\]S\. Shon, S\. Arora, C\. Lin, A\. Pasad, F\. Wu, R\. Sharma, W\. Wu, H\. Lee, K\. Livescu, and S\. Watanabe\(2023\)SLUE phase\-2: a benchmark suite of diverse spoken language understanding tasks\.InProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics \(Volume 1: Long Papers\),pp\. 8906–8937\.External Links:[Document](https://dx.doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.496),[Link](https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.496/)Cited by:[§III](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S3.p1.1)\.
- \[21\]Y\. Liu, M\. Ott, N\. Goyal, J\. Du, M\. Joshi, D\. Chen, O\. Levy, M\. Lewis, L\. Zettlemoyer, and V\. Stoyanov\(2019\)RoBERTa: a robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach\.Note:arXiv preprint arXiv:1907\.11692External Links:[Link](https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.11692)Cited by:[§III](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S3.p2.1)\.
- \[22\]J\. Devlin, M\. Chang, K\. Lee, and K\. Toutanova\(2018\)BERT: pre\-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding\.Note:arXiv preprint arXiv:1810\.04805External Links:[Link](https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805)Cited by:[§III](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S3.p2.1)\.
- \[23\]Z\. Lan, M\. Chen, S\. Goodman, K\. Gimpel, P\. Sharma, and R\. Soricut\(2019\)ALBERT: a lite BERT for self\-supervised learning of language representations\.Note:arXiv preprint arXiv:1909\.11942External Links:[Link](https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.11942)Cited by:[§III](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S3.p2.1)\.
- \[24\]A\. Radford, J\. Wu, R\. Child, D\. Luan, D\. Amodei, and I\. Sutskever\(2019\)Language models are unsupervised multitask learners\.Note:OpenAI Blog, vol\. 1, no\. 8Cited by:[§III](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S3.p2.1)\.
- \[25\]S\. Hochreiter and J\. Schmidhuber\(1997\)Long short\-term memory\.Neural Computation9\(8\),pp\. 1735–1780\.External Links:[Document](https://dx.doi.org/10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735)Cited by:[§III](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S3.p2.1)\.
- \[26\]A\. Radford, J\. W\. Kim, T\. Xu, G\. Brockman, C\. McLeavey, and I\. Sutskever\(2023\)Robust speech recognition via large\-scale weak supervision\.InProceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning,External Links:[Link](https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04356)Cited by:[§III](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22934#S3.p9.1)\.