What Do Self-Supervised Speech Models Know About Words?

Many self-supervised speech models (S3Ms) have been introduced over the last few years, improving performance and data efficiency on various speech tasks. However, these empirical successes alone do not give a complete picture of what is learned during pre-training. Recent work has begun analyzing how S3Ms encode certain properties, such as phonetic and speaker information, but we still lack a proper understanding of knowledge encoded at the word level and beyond. In this work, we use lightweight analysis methods to study segment-level linguistic properties—word identity, boundaries, pronunciation, syntactic features, and semantic features—encoded in S3Ms. We present a comparative study of layer-wise representations from ten S3Ms and find that (i) the frame-level representations within each word segment are not all equally informative, and (ii) the pre-training objective and model size heavily influence the accessibility and distribution of linguistic information across layers. We also find that on several tasks—word discrimination, word segmentation, and semantic sentence similarity—S3Ms trained with visual grounding outperform their speech-only counterparts. Finally, our task-based analyses demonstrate improved performance on word segmentation and acoustic word discrimination while using simpler methods than prior work.1

Recent work has begun studying the acoustic and phonetic content encoded in S3Ms (Abdullah et al., 2023;Hsu et al., 2021c;Ma et al., 2021;Pasad et al., 2021Pasad et al., , 2023)), and the findings have in turn helped guide model development and use (Baevski et al., 2022;Feng et al., 2022;Liu et al., 2023;van Niekerk et al., 2021;Pasad et al., 2021Pasad et al., , 2023)).However, S3Ms may encode higher-level linguistic information as well, since their model architectures (typically based on self-attention (Gulati et al., 2020;Vaswani et al., 2017)) use contextual information from the entire speech input.There has been little analysis thus far of the word-level information encoded in these models (Pasad et al., 2023;Sanabria et al., 2023).To fill this gap, our work addresses two key questions: (i) how is word-related information distributed across frames within a word segment?and (ii) in which layers, and how well, do S3Ms encode segment-level pronunciation, syntactic, and semantic information?
To investigate these questions, we use canonical correlation analysis, a standard lightweight analysis tool, along with unsupervised evaluations on tasks: acoustic word discrimination, word segmentation, and semantic sentence similarity.We present a comparative study across ten S3Ms differing in their pre-training objective, data modality, and model size.Some of the key findings include: • The form of the pre-training objective affects which intermediate layers correlate the most with word-level properties.(Sec.5.2.1) • Word-identifying information is concentrated close to the center of each segment.(Sec.5.1.2) • Pre-trained representations from different S3Ms arXiv:2307.00162v3[cs.CL] 31 Jan 2024 require varying complexities of post-processing to use the encoded knowledge.(Sec.5.1.1)• The visually grounded S3Ms are better than speech-only S3Ms on several tasks: word discrimination (Sec.5.1.1),segmentation (Sec.5.1.3),and semantic similarity (Sec.5.2.2). • A task's evaluation domain impacts the relative ranking of S3Ms, but the individual layer-wise trends remain domain-invariant.(Sec.5.3) • With a simple parameter-free word segmentation algorithm, S3M features outperform previous, more complex unsupervised approaches.(Sec.5.1.3)• With a single-layer RNN trained on a small amount of labeled data, S3M features achieve near-perfect word discrimination, outperforming prior work by a large margin.(Sec.5.1.1)
Analysis on higher-level units, such as words in S3Ms, has been limited.Pasad et al. (2023) analyzed the extent to which different layers of S3Ms encode word identity, and Sanabria et al. (2023) found that pooled S3M representations over word segments perform competitively on the task of acoustic word discrimination.These results indicate that S3Ms encode word-identifying information.However, it is not clear from prior work how word information is distributed across frames and what aspects of words are encoded, such as their pronunciation, syntactic properties, or semantic properties; our work addresses this gap.
CCA and its more robust variants have been previously used to compare representations within and across neural networks (Kornblith et al., 2019;Raghu et al., 2017), to study text representation models (Saphra and Lopez, 2019;Tsvetkov et al., 2016;Voita et al., 2019), and more recently for the analysis of S3M representations (Li et al., 2023a;Pasad et al., 2021Pasad et al., , 2023;;Yang et al., 2023b).While classifiers require discrete labels, CCA can be used with both discrete and continuous-valued labels.CCA is also computationally inexpensive and has a closed-form solution.
Word similarity (WordSim) tasks (Faruqui and Dyer, 2014) have been commonly used for intrinsic evaluation of word vectors.However, previous work has observed some problematic aspects of these tasks (Faruqui et al., 2016), including that WordSim performance is not well-correlated with extrinsic evaluation, whereas CCA-based evaluation more consistently tracks downstream task performance (Tsvetkov et al., 2016).Our work also shares some motivation with the Zero Resource Speech Benchmark (Nguyen et al., 2020), but tasks in this benchmark require encoding isolated word segments and/or discretizing the representations.Our analyses use word segment representations extracted in context, in order to match the most common use cases of S3Ms.
The task of acoustic word discrimination (AWD) (Carlin et al., 2011) has been commonly used to evaluate segment-level acoustic word embeddings, using both unsupervised (Algayres et al., 2020;Levin et al., 2013;Peng et al., 2020;Van Staden and Kamper, 2021) and supervised models (Algayres et al., 2020;He et al., 2017;Kamper et al., 2016;Settle and Livescu, 2016).To our knowledge, only Sanabria et al. (2023) and Van Staden and Kamper (2021) have studied the use of S3Ms for generating acoustic word embeddings for AWD.Van Staden and Kamper (2021) used "first-generation" S3Ms while (Sanabria et al., 2023) analyzed two of the same modern S3Ms we study here.Our work provides a more comprehen-sive study of using multiple approaches (unsupervised mean pooling, dynamic time warping, and supervised models using S3M features), as well as a new state-of-the-art for one of the most commonly used AWD benchmarks.
Word unit discovery and segmentation are common benchmark tasks that have also been used to study speech representations (Algayres et al., 2022;Bhati et al., 2021;ten Bosch and Cranen, 2007;Cuervo et al., 2022;Dunbar et al., 2020;Nguyen et al., 2022;Sanabria et al., 2021).Previous work studying the segmentation capabilities of S3Ms includes (Kamper, 2022), based on first discovering phone-like units and then using them to discover word segments, and (Peng and Harwath, 2022b), based on thresholding the attention map of a visually grounded speech model (VG-HuBERT, which we also use here).Our study complements this prior work by comparing the layer-wise performance of a large number of S3Ms for this task and showing that a simple, training-free segmentation algorithm performs very competitively.
Textual sentence similarity is a classic task in NLP (Conneau and Kiela, 2018), but there are only a few studies investigating spoken utterance representations for this task (Merkx et al., 2021(Merkx et al., , 2023;;Zhu et al., 2022).Some downstream tasks in the SUPERB benchmark (Yang et al., 2021) successfully use spoken utterance representations from frozen S3Ms, represented by a single mean-pooled vector.We complement our understanding of the capabilities of pooled utterance representations by performing a broad cross-model comparison.

Analysis methods
We extract frame-level and span-level representations from all layers of each S3M.We use CCA to compare word segment representations with various linguistic vectors (Sec.3.1) and also investigate encoded properties using training-free approaches for several tasks: (i) acoustic word discrimination (Sec.3.2), (ii) word segmentation (Sec.3.3), and (iii) sentence-level semantic similarity (Sec.3.4).

CCA-based analysis
CCA (Hotelling, 1936) is a statistical technique that measures the relationship between two continuousvalued random vectors by evaluating the maximum correlations between their linear projections.CCA takes as input n pairs of vectors {(x 1 , y 1 ), ..., (x n , y n )}, sampled from the random maximize the same correlation subject to each new projection being uncorrelated with others in the same view.This problem has a closed-form solution requiring one singular vector decomposition.We use projection-weighted CCA (PWCCA) (Morcos et al., 2018), a robust CCA variant commonly used in recent analysis studies (Pasad et al., 2021(Pasad et al., , 2023;;Voita et al., 2019;Yang et al., 2023b).The value of a PWCCA score lies between 0 and 1.Specifically, we use PWCCA to compare word segment representations with various linguistic vectors (Tab.1): Word identity.We measure how well S3M representations encode word identity by comparing them with word IDs.For CCA computation, we follow Pasad et al. (2023)'s approach and convert the discrete word IDs to one-hot vectors.We use this analysis to examine the location of word information within the word segment.
Acoustically grounded word embeddings.Acoustically grounded word embeddings (AGWEs) are written word embeddings trained jointly with acoustic word embeddings (AWE), i.e., representations of spoken word segments (He et al., 2017;Hu et al., 2020;Settle et al., 2019).A contrastive learning objective jointly optimizes AWE and AGWE models such that AWE and AGWE of the same word are closer than for pairs of different words.We use AGWEs obtained from joint AWE+AGWE training on the LibriSpeech corpus (Panayotov et al., 2015). 3We expect CCA similarity with AG-WEs to measure word-level pronunciation information encoded by the S3Ms.
Syntactic features.Tsvetkov et al. (2016) construct syntactic vectors from the Penn Treebank (PTB) (Marcus et al., 1993).For each word, an empirical probability is calculated for each of the 45 part-of-speech (POS) tags based on frequencies in the tagged corpus.This results in 45-dimensional syntactic vectors and each vector sums to 1.For example, "light" has values 0.52, 0.41, 0.05, and 0.02 for noun (NN), adjective (JJ), proper noun (NNP), and verb (VB) attributes, respectively, and zero for the rest.
Semantic features.Tsvetkov et al. (2015) exploit word sense annotations in SemCor (Miller et al., 1993), a WordNet-annotated version of the Brown Corpus.For each word, an empirical probability is calculated for each sense attribute (26 nouns and 15 verbs), based on their frequencies in the labeled corpus.This results in 41-dimensional semantic vectors and each vector sums to 1.For instance, the vector for the word "family" has a value of 0.96 and 0.04 for NN.GROUP and NN.ACT attributes, respectively, and zero for the rest.
The resulting embedding space puts words with similar attributes closer together.For instance, the semantic vector of "family" is most similar to words with a high value for the NN.GROUP attribute: government, leaders, elite, platoon.This behavior differs from that of a more fine-grained distributional embedding space such as GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014) where some of the nearest neighbors for "family" are husband, father, mother, sister, and wife.
We do not compare S3M representations with learned text embeddings (such as GloVe or BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) representations).Although these embeddings possibly encode richer text representations than our linguistic features, they also contain a mix of syntactic and semantic information.This would not allow us to study the syntactic and semantic features separately.

Acoustic word discrimination
Acoustic word discrimination (AWD) is the task of determining whether or not a pair of acoustic waveform segments (X i , X j ) correspond to the same word (Carlin et al., 2011).A measure of dissimilarity between X i and X j is computed, and the pair is predicted to be "the same" if their dissimilarity falls below a threshold and "different" otherwise.AWD performance is reported as average precision, i.e., the area under the precision-recall curve generated by varying the threshold.
We use S3Ms for AWD in three ways.pool-AWD compares cosine distance after mean-pooling the frame-level features.DTW-AWD computes a dynamic time warping distance between segments using the cosine distance between their frame-level features.RNN-AWD trains a recurrent neural network on the frame-level representations, following Shi et al. (2021)'s approach but using phone sequences for supervision as in (Hu et al., 2020).

Word segmentation
We ask how well S3M representations can perform word segmentation "intrinsically".We design a straightforward training-free algorithm to leverage the behavior of frame-level representations near word segment boundaries (see Fig. 1).
Given a sentence comprising T frames, first, we extract the frame-level features f t (1 ≤ t ≤ T ) from an S3M layer and perform mean and variance normalization, for each channel, across all f t 's to get the normalized ft 's.Then we compute the dissimilarity between adjacent frames d(•, •) to get g t = d( ft+1 , ft ), and smooth g t with a moving average.Finally, we use a peak detection algorithm to identify adjacent frames with higher dissimilarity than the surrounding frames.While peak detection algorithms have been commonly used for phoneme (Cuervo et al., 2022;Kreuk et al., 2020;Räsänen et al., 2011) and word segmentation (Bhati et al., 2021;Cuervo et al., 2022), most prior word segmentation methods (with the exception of (Peng and Harwath, 2022b)) have relied on explicit training of the segmentation models while our approach does not.
The detected word boundaries are evaluated using standard metrics: precision, recall, F1-score, and R-value, using a tolerance window of 20ms following prior work (Kamper, 2022).

Sentence-level semantic similarity
Finally, we ask whether S3Ms encode any semantic content at the utterance level.We evaluate utterance representations from S3Ms on spoken STS (Merkx et al., 2021), a spoken (read) version of the popular semantic textual similarity (STS)

S3M
Moving average & peak detection dataset (Conneau and Kiela, 2018).STS consists of sentence pairs annotated with a semantic similarity judgment.For each utterance in a pair, we extract a sentence-level representation from an S3M layer and use cosine similarity between these representations to predict semantic similarity.We report Spearman's ρ correlation between the annotated human judgments and the predicted similarity scores.

Experiment details
We present analysis for ten S3Ms differing in (i) pretraining objective, (ii) data modality (using either speech or image-speech pairs), and (iii) model size.

Background on S3Ms
S3Ms are trained with an objective function formulated to solve a pretext task on unlabeled data.In a typical model architecture, the raw audio (or filter bank features) is first passed through convolutional layers (or a linear projection).Then, the resulting frame-level local features are processed through self-attention layers.The models we use have 7 convolutional (or 1 linear) and 12 or 24 transformer layers.All the models in this work use a masking-based pretext task, using both the left and the right context to recover the masked segment (target).The target comes from either the local features (wav2vec 2.0 4 (wav2vec2) (Baevski et al., 2020)  VGS+ (Peng and Harwath, 2022a)) or from one of the intermediate transformer layers, represented as a discrete cluster ID (HuBERT5 (Hsu et al., 2021c), WavLM 6 (Chen et al., 2022), AV-HuBERT 7 (Shi et al., 2022), and VG-HuBERT (Peng and Harwath, 2022b)).Models of the first type are trained with a contrastive loss and the latter with a classification loss.The classification loss for WavLM uses cluster IDs from HuBERT's intermediate layers (the same ones used in HuBERT's iterative pre-training).Unlike HuBERT, WavLM augments the input data to simulate noisy/overlapped speech.
The visually grounded 8 FaST-VGS+ and VG-HuBERT models are initialized with pretrained wav2vec2-Base 9 and HuBERT-Base, 10 respectively, thus providing a way to isolate and analyze the effect of visual grounding.These models are trained with a cross-modal contrastive loss with an appended CLS token, a fixed-dimensional utterance-level representation.AV-HuBERT is trained on a lipreading dataset with a pre-training objective that uses multi-modal discrete units.In the case of the audio-visual models, we use only the audio branch for our analysis.

CCA evaluation
For CCA similarity with word ID (CCA-word), we sample ∼7k word instances across 500 distinct words from the dev-clean subset of LibriSpeech.We represent the word segment using either a single frame, by mean-pooling across a quarter of the contiguous frames, or by mean-pooling across all the frames within the word boundaries.The single frame is sampled from one of five equidistant locations starting at the first frame.The quarter chunk of contiguous frames is extracted from one of the four quarters of the word segment.
In all other CCA experiments, we obtain word segment representations by mean-pooling across all frames within the word boundaries and compare these representations with external linguistic embedding vectors (Tab.1).We sample 364k word instances across 9.9k distinct words from the Lib-riSpeech train-clean and train-other subsets.This sample includes the 8.6k and 4k word vocabularies from PTB and SemCor vectors, respectively.
We evaluate PWCCA with multiple data splits to avoid overfitting, using the implementation from Pasad et al. (2023). 11Specifically, we run each experiment with 5 train-val-test splits.In the result figures below, we plot the mean of the 5 runs along with a shadow around the mean corresponding to the minimum and maximum values.For most result plots, the shading is not visible as there is negligible deviation among results across runs.

Acoustic word discrimination
We evaluate pool-AWD and DTW-AWD on "clean" and "other" partitions of the LibriSpeech development set.Our RNN-AWD models are trained and evaluated on Switchboard (Godfrey et al., 1992) data using the same train-dev-test split as prior work (Carlin et al., 2011;He et al., 2017;Jansen et al., 2013;Kamper et al., 2016) with each partition containing approximately 10k spoken word segments.We evaluate pool-AWD on our Switchboard dev set first to find the best layer before supervised RNN-AWD training.In all cases, spoken word segments are 0.5-2s in duration, and segments used for evaluation on LibriSpeech and Switchboard span 5k and 3k word vocabularies, respectively.

Word segmentation
We consider two measures of dissimilarity between neighboring frames, Euclidean distance and cosine distance.We use a prominence-based algorithm (Virtanen et al., 2020) to detect peaks in the dissimilarity curve with a prominence value exceeding a specified threshold.For each layer in each S3M, we grid search over the choice of distance metric, prominence value threshold, and moving-average window size.We choose the best combination based on F1-scores for word boundary detection on a randomly sampled subset of the Lib-riSpeech dev-clean split (∼2k utterances).We also evaluate all layers on the Buckeye (Pitt et al., 2005) validation set, and the best layer of each S3M is evaluated on the Buckeye test set.

Sentence-level semantic similarity
The natural speech recordings in Spoken STS constitute 5% (638 sentence pairs) of the original STS corpus (Merkx et al., 2021).Sentences in each pair are read by four speakers, and thus, each pair has 16 speaker combinations.Each spoken sentence is represented by mean-pooling all frame-level representations from an S3M layer.For VG-HuBERT, we extract the utterance-level CLS token representation as well.As in previous work (Merkx et al., 2021;Zhu et al., 2022), the predicted score for each sentence pair is the mean of the cosine similarities between their representations for all speaker combinations.

Findings
We present our findings in two parts.Sec.5.1 investigates the spoken word knowledge learned by S3Ms, and how this information is distributed across the frames of each word segment.12Sec.5.2 looks at specific linguistic propertiespronunciation, syntactic, and semantic-of wordlevel and sentence-level representations.

Analysis of frame-level representations
We investigate the word-related information encoded by S3M layers in different frames across the word segment, specifically knowledge of word identity and word boundaries.

Ease of accessing encoded information
Fig. 2a shows layer-wise correlation scores with word ID vectors for all models. 13We investigate whether this word-identifying information, as evidenced by high CCA scores, is easily accessible by evaluating the word representations on AWD.
For pool-AWD, we see that the best and worst performing models have a large difference (Figs.2b, 2c) despite being similarly wellcorrelated with word ID vectors (Fig. 2a).Next, we evaluate DTW-AWD on a subset of models (Fig. 3) and find that (i) all models have a better performance than pool-AWD with a reduced cross-model performance gap, and (ii) the cross-model ranking is also consistent with pool-AWD.The cross-model performance gap is further reduced with our supervised RNN-AWD experiments (Tab.2) and the cross-  model ranking is consistent with the corresponding pool-AWD trends on Switchboard (Fig. 2c).Our multi-view RNN-AWD model attains a near-perfect average precision, significantly outperforming previous work (by >10% absolute).These experiments suggest that some models (such as wav2vec2) distribute discriminative word information across frames in a way that is not easily extracted through mean-pooling and compared via cosine distance, indicating that more structured reasoning over the whole segment may be helpful, such as frame-level processing in our DTW and RNN experiments.A similar observation is made in prior work (Sanabria et al., 2023) where representing words using sub-sampled and concatenated frames instead of mean-pooling gives the most relative improvement for wav2vec2.
We include a detailed discussion on the layerwise trends and effect of evaluation domain (Figs. 2b,2c) in Sec.5.3.1.

Are all frames equally informative?
Next, we analyse frame-level representations to understand how word-identifying information is distributed within word boundaries.We represent word segments either using individual frames at different locations or by pooling over frames spanning Method AP Multi-View RNN (He et al., 2017) w/ log-Mel filterbank features 0.84 w/ wav2vec2-Base (L8) 0.93 w/ HuBERT-Base (L9) 0.94 w/ WavLM-Base (L10) 0.95 w/ WavLM-Large (L20) 0.98 Table 2: RNN-AWD performance on the Switchboard word discrimination test set (Carlin et al., 2011); layer used specified in parentheses.
different quarters of the segment.We measure CCA scores between word segment representations and word ID and find that frames near the center of the word segment are most informative of the word identity (Figs. 4 and 5).Specifically, the single center frame and the 2 nd and 3 rd quarter spans are all as highly correlated with the word identity as the mean-pooled representations.These findings are consistent across all S3Ms analyzed.
We see a similar word localization trend in the AWD evaluations (Fig. 5), but with a stronger bias toward the start of the segment.In particular, using the 2 nd quarter span alone yields a better AP for wav2vec2-Base and HuBERT-Base.This gives a possible explanation for their better relative performance on DTW-AWD and RNN-AWD compared to pool-AWD since those approaches can adjust their focus to only the most relevant frames.non-trivial word segmentation capability. 14We observe that visually grounded models consistently outperform their speech-only counterparts, possibly because of the visual context.Further strengthening this hypothesis, we note that VG-HuBERT has a minimal performance drop at the final few layers, unlike other S3Ms, which can be attributed to the proximity to the cross-modal loss.FaST-VGS+ does not see the same trend, while it is designed such that the final few layers we analyze here are only trained on the self-supervised loss but not the cross-modal loss.Similar unit discovery capabilities of visually grounded models have also been studied in prior work (Harwath and Glass, 2017;Peng and Harwath, 2022b).We include more discussion of performance comparison across S3Ms and across evaluation domain (Figs.6a, 6b) in Sec.5.3.2.

Word segmentation
In Tab. 3, we compare the best-performing layers in our experiments with previous word segmentation algorithms that take S3M features as inputs.With our simple training-free method, we obtain the best F1 score of 41.0% using the 10 th layer of VG-HuBERT.This outperforms a previously published attention-based approach using VG-HuBERT (Peng and Harwath, 2022b) and a recent dynamic programming-based approach that also trains an autoencoder on top (Kamper, 2022).However, we note that our approach falls short in terms of R-values, implying that it tends to oversegment.This can possibly be improved by designing different criteria for hyper-parameter selection, as our criterion is solely based on the F1 score.

Analysis of pooled span representations
Next, we measure how correlated word segment representations are with the other linguistic prop-erties from Tab. 1: pronunciation, syntactic (POS) attributes, and semantic attributes (Sec.5.2.1), and we evaluate mean-pooled utterance representations on sentence similarity (Sec.5.2.2).Our remaining word-level experiments consider mean-pooled word segment representations as these consistently correlate well with word ID (Figs. 4 and 5).

Similarity with linguistic properties
In Fig. 7, we observe that models trained to recover local features (wav2vec2 and FaST-VGS+) have the highest correlation at central layers, specifically layers 5-7 for Base models and layers 8-11 for the Large model.The rest of the models are trained to recover discrete units from an intermediate layer and have the highest correlation at much higher layers.This dependence on the form of pre-training objective has been observed before for lower-level acoustic and phonetic features (Pasad et al., 2023).As seen for our other experiments (Figs. 2, 6), the audio-visual models (AV-HuBERT and VG-HuBERT) see the least drop off in the final layers.These models are optimized with an audio-visual objective, suggesting that meaningful linguistic content is retained better with visual grounding.
For all S3Ms, pronunciation content (Fig. 7a) is best correlated at lower layers than syntactic (Fig. 7b) and semantic properties (Fig. 7c).In Base models, the same set of intermediate layers is best correlated with both syntactic and semantic at-  tributes.The Large models, on the other hand, have a more pronounced peak for semantic than syntactic content, which in turn has a narrower plateau than the word pronunciation trends (Fig. 7 right).
This differs from some observations made for BERT, a pre-trained text model, where different linguistic features-such as POS, constituents, dependencies, and entities-are encoded best at different layers (Tenney et al., 2019).This difference is possibly because the speech pre-training objective is mostly local with much of the model capacity (i.e. the majority of the layers) devoted to inferring local acoustic and lower-level phonetic features.
Meanwhile, text models that start with higher-level segmented sub-word units have the capacity to encode fine-grained linguistic properties in different layers.BERT's superiority in linguistic knowledge is supported by Shen et al. (2023) where BERT outperforms wav2vec2 and HuBERT by 20% relative on a parsing-related probing task.
To qualitatively study the syntactic information encoded in S3M representations, we visualize the mean-pooled word representations from the layers with high correlation with the PTB syntactic vectors (Fig. 7b).We sample ∼7k word instances across 500 distinct words and apply t-SNE to project the word representations to 2 dimensions (Fig. 9).We find that, for WavLM, word samples with the same POS tag (especially for verbs, nouns, and adpositions) are encoded into vectors close to each other.However, the representations of wav2vec2 are not as well-separated.These visualizations further corroborate our findings from CCA trends (Fig. 7b), where WavLM shows a greater correlation than wav2vec2.

Sentence-level semantics
Fig. 8 shows the layer-wise performance on the spoken sentence similarity task.We include two baselines: (i) FBank uses mean-pooled filter-bank features as a sentence representation, and (ii) naive text baseline reports the fraction of word overlap  The CLS token of VG-HuBERT has the best correlation score of 0.64 at layer 11, closely followed by layer 8 of VG-HuBERT and FaST-VGS+, both visually grounded models.The speech-only S3Ms we analyze outperform other S3Ms previously evaluated on this task (Merkx et al., 2021;Zhu et al., 2022). 16However, they all underperform a text oracle baseline from Zhu et al. (2022) using self-supervised text embeddings (SimCSEunsup-RoBERTa), which has a correlation score of 0.77. 16The comparison with (Merkx et al., 2021) is based on Pearson's correlation, not reported here.

Effect of domain on task-based evaluation
Prior work evaluating S3Ms on downstream tasks has demonstrated how the relative ranking of S3Ms may be influenced by the domain of an S3M's pretraining data as well as the evaluation methodology (Hsu et al., 2021b;Tsai et al., 2022;Yang et al., 2021;Zaiem et al., 2023b).For instance, similarly to all our task-based experiments (Figs.2b, 6, and 8), the SUPERB benchmarks (Tsai et al., 2022;Yang et al., 2021)  17 and Zaiem et al. (2023b) report instances where some Large S3Ms under-perform their Base counterparts on downstream tasks.
Next, we discuss our takeaways related to the effect of (mis-)match between the domain of pretraining data and task data on some of our analysis experiments.

Acoustic word discrimintaion
We evaluate pool-AWD on both LibriSpeech (Fig. 2b), a read speech domain, and Switchboard (Fig. 2c), a conversational speech domain.We observe that the relative ranking of S3Ms differs for the two settings.For instance, AV-HuBERT has better performance on Switchboard, outperforming all Base models, whereas all other S3Ms have higher scores on LibriSpeech.WavLM-Large outperforms WavLM-Base on Switchboard but the larger model under-performs on LibriSpeech.In both cases, the domain of pre-training data provides a potential explanation.Specifically, AV-HuBERT models are pre-trained on TED videos (Afouras et al., 2018) and WavLM-Large is pre-trained on a mix of data (Chen et al., 2021;Wang et al., 2021) including orated speech and spontaneous speech, whereas all other S3Ms are trained on read speech domains (Hsu et al., 2021a;Kahn et al., 2020;Panayotov et al., 2015).
We note that some cross-model rankings are consistent across evaluation domains.For instance, HuBERT and WavLM, both pre-trained to predict discrete cluster IDs from intermediate layers, outperform wav2vec2, which is trained to recover local features.As seen for other task-based evaluation (Secs.5.1.3,5.2.2), the visually grounded models, FaST-VGS+ and VG-HuBERT, outperform the speech-only Base models, wav2vec2 and HuBERT, used to initialize them.
Additionally, we observe that the layer-wise trends for all S3Ms are consistent across evaluation domains and follow a similar dependence on the pre-training objective as noted by our previous results (Sec.5.2.1) and some prior work (Pasad et al., 2023).

Word segmentation
We evaluate word segmentation on LibriSpeech (Fig. 6a) and Buckeye (Fig. 6b).Similarly to previous findings, we observe that the relative ranking of S3Ms differs for the two settings.Specifically, S3Ms pre-trained solely on LibriSpeech (wav2vec2-Base, HuBERT-Base, WavLM-Base) take a much larger hit in performance when evaluated on Buckeye, and the visually grounded models, on the other hand, have a slightly better performance on Buckeye than on LibriSpeech.Again, the layer-wise trends for most S3Ms are invariant to the evaluation domain.WavLM-Large does not follow this trend and more than half of the layers have a drastically poorer performance on Buckeye.We hypothesize that the hyperparameters (tuned on LibriSpeech, Sec.4.4) transfer better for other Large models than for WavLM-Large, due to domain mismatch, as discussed above for pool-AWD (Sec.5.3.1).

Conclusion
The analyses presented here further our understanding of S3Ms, specifically their representation of word-level properties.Some of our findings corroborate patterns found in earlier work; for example, the most linguistically "deep" information appears to be encoded best in a small set of intermediate layers, and pre-training objective and model size influence layer-wise trends.We contribute new findings about previously unstudied aspects of S3Ms, such as the distribution of word information within word segments and the encoding of syntactic and semantic features.Most importantly, the comparison of a large number of models using the same analyses and tasks, and the study of multiple wordlevel properties, enables a more complete understanding of the space of S3Ms.As an additional product of this work, we obtained strong results on multiple benchmark tasks, outperforming prior work using simple models based on frozen S3M representations.
Our work studies which S3M layers are better (or worse) at encoding certain linguistic properties.Previous studies have used similar findings to guide modeling decisions when adapting pretrained models for downstream tasks (Pasad et al., 2023;Xie et al., 2022;Yang et al., 2023a), including the choice of which layers to drop, distill18 , or reinitialize (Chang et al., 2022;Choi et al., 2021;Hsu et al., 2021c;Hwang et al., 2022;Li et al., 2023b;Pasad et al., 2021;Zaiem et al., 2023a).We therefore expect our findings to inform design choices for both model development and their utilization for downstream tasks.For instance, for all the S3Ms we study, our analysis reveals that linguistic content is most prominent within the intermediate layers (Fig. 7).Since layers encoding semantic content should be particularly beneficial for language understanding tasks, our findings suggest an exploration of alternative strategies to the common practice of adding a prediction head to the topmost layer (Shon et al., 2023(Shon et al., , 2022)).
Our analyses have addressed several questions about S3Ms' word-level representations, thereby providing a foundation to address more challenging questions.For example, a natural next step is to ask how much (and where) phrase-and sentencelevel properties, such as constituents, dependencies, and entities, are encoded.For some tasks, such as word segmentation, although our results with S3Ms are stronger than prior work, they are far from solving the task.Finally, we have noted (as have some prior studies) that larger models are not always better by all measures, raising the question of what the additional model capacity provides and whether there is a better way to train and utilize larger models.
CCA similarity between mean-pooled S3M word segment representations and word ID one-hot vectors.pool-AWD scores on LibriSpeech dev-clean.pool-AWD scores on Switchboard dev.

Figure 4 :
Figure 4: Correlation with word identity for wav2vec2-Base when using a single frame to represent a word segment.

Fig. 6 Figure 5 :
Fig.6shows the F1-scores of S3Ms on the word segmentation task.All of the models demonstrate

Figure 6 :
Figure 6: Unsupervised word segmentation using representations from Base (left) and Large S3Ms.
Word pronunciation content; CCA similarity between S3M word segment representations and AGWEs.Syntactic content; CCA similarity between S3M word segment representations and POS attributes.Semantic content; CCA similarity between S3M word segment representations and SemCor attributes.

Figure 7 :
Figure7: Measure of different linguistic properties using CCA for Base (left) and Large (right) S3Ms .tributes.The Large models, on the other hand, have a more pronounced peak for semantic than syntactic content, which in turn has a narrower plateau than the word pronunciation trends (Fig.7 right).This differs from some observations made for BERT, a pre-trained text model, where different linguistic features-such as POS, constituents, dependencies, and entities-are encoded best at different layers(Tenney et al., 2019).This difference is possibly because the speech pre-training objective is mostly local with much of the model capacity (i.e. the majority of the layers) devoted to inferring local acoustic and lower-level phonetic features.Meanwhile, text models that start with higher-level segmented sub-word units have the capacity to encode fine-grained linguistic properties in different layers.BERT's superiority in linguistic knowledge is supported byShen et al. (2023) where BERT outperforms wav2vec2 and HuBERT by 20% relative on a parsing-related probing task.To qualitatively study the syntactic information

Figure 8 :
Figure 8: Performance on spoken STS task using representations from Base (left) and Large (right) S3Ms.

Figure 9 :
Figure 9: Visualization of the embedding spaces of the intermediate layers of S3Ms.Each point represents one word sample.Only the 6 most common POS tags are shown.

Table 3 :
Word segmentation performance on the Buckeye test set.Higher is better for all metrics.