Trax v2 Research and Architecture Analysis: A
Deep Dive into Performance, Speaker Diarization,
and Advanced Features
The Next Frontier of Accuracy: Multi-Pass Processing and
Domain-Specific Enhancement
The pursuit of transcription accuracy beyond the 95% baseline achieved by Whisper distil-large-v3 is
a primary driver for Trax v2. The research indicates that this can be accomplished through two
distinct yet complementary strategies: multi-pass processing to refine transcriptions iteratively, and
domain-specific enhancement to tailor the model's understanding to specialized content. These
approaches move beyond a single-pass inference model, embracing a more sophisticated pipeline
architecture where outputs from one stage serve as inputs or context for subsequent stages, leading
to significant quality improvements.
Multi-pass processing represents a paradigm shift in ASR systems, designed to bridge the gap
between real-time responsiveness and offline-quality accuracy. This strategy involves chaining
multiple models together, often with different strengths, to progressively improve the final transcript.
One of the most compelling examples is the two-pass end-to-end speech recognition system
developed by Google researchers . This architecture pairs a fast, streaming Recognizer Neural
Transducer (RNN-T) model with a slower, non-streaming Listen, Attend and Spell (LAS) model that
shares an encoder network . The RNN-T acts as a first pass, providing a preliminary hypothesis
quickly, while the LAS model performs a deeper rescoring of the top-K hypotheses from the first
pass, leveraging its attention-based mechanism to capture longer-range dependencies . This
approach has been shown to achieve a 17%-22% relative Word Error Rate (WER) reduction
compared to the RNN-T alone, effectively closing the quality gap with traditional non-streaming
models, all while keeping the latency increase under 200ms—a trade-off that is highly favorable for
many applications . Further innovation comes from cascaded systems that optimize for
efficiency; one study demonstrated reducing the frame rate of the second pass by half resulted in a
20% reduction in Real-Time Factor (RTF) and 13% power savings without impacting final accuracy
.
Another powerful technique within the multi-pass framework is iterative refinement, which leverages
the output of a transcription model to directly improve its own performance. Research shows that
self-supervised speech models like HuBERT become better at representing linguistic features with
each training iteration, improving their correlation with canonical phoneme and word identities while
de-correlating from speaker identity . This suggests that using a model's own pseudo-labels to
create new training data for subsequent iterations enhances its core capabilities. An even more
advanced concept is mutual enhancement, where ASR and Voice Conversion (VC) models are
trained in a loop, with the ASR model generating text to train the VC model, and the VC model
8
4 8
8
2 4 8
22
23
generating synthesized audio to augment the ASR training set . While complex, this approach
demonstrates how models can learn from each other without requiring massive annotated datasets,
pointing towards a future where Trax could continuously improve its own transcription engine.
Domain-specific enhancement addresses the challenge of maintaining high accuracy across diverse
content types, such as technical lectures, medical consultations, or noisy conference calls. The
industry standard for this is full-scale fine-tuning on domain-specific data, but this is computationally
expensive and risks catastrophic forgetting of general knowledge . Fortunately, the field of
Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) offers elegant solutions. Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) is a
standout method that freezes the vast majority of the pre-trained model's weights and injects small,
trainable "rank decomposition" matrices into the transformer layers . This drastically reduces
memory requirements and training time while achieving near-full fine-tuning performance. For
instance, LoRA was used to adapt Whisper for domain adaptation with less than 0.1% of the total
model parameters, resulting in WER reductions of over 3 points . Other PEFT methods include
prompt tuning, which learns a small, trainable "prompt" vector to steer the model's behavior, and
speech prefix tuning (SPT), which appends fixed-length vectors to input features and has been
shown to outperform LoRA on certain tasks . A particularly innovative approach involves text-
only fine-tuning, where only the Language Model (LLM) component of a Speech LLM is adapted
using unpaired target-domain text, preserving the original speech encoder's integrity and avoiding
performance degradation on general domains . This allows Trax to build a highly accurate,
specialized model for a niche domain like financial reporting or legal proceedings without bloating
the overall system.
Feature Multi-Pass Processing
Domain-Specific Enhancement
(PEFT)
Core Principle
Chaining multiple models (e.g., fast-first,
slow-second) to refine results iteratively .
Modifying a small fraction of a
pre-trained model's weights to
adapt it to a specific domain .
Primary Benefit
Achieves near-offline accuracy with low
latency . Enables high accuracy in
specialized contexts .
Key Techniques
Shared-encoder architectures , N-best
rescoring , adaptive beam search ,
cascaded systems .
Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA)
, Prompt Tuning , Text-
Only Fine-Tuning , Adapter
Tuning .
Performance
Impact
17-22% relative WER reduction vs. single-
pass models . 3-11 absolute point WER
reduction .
Implementation
Cost
Increased complexity in pipeline
architecture. Requires managing multiple
models.
Low computational cost for
adaptation. Minimal storage
overhead for adapter modules.
1
32
31 33
28
34 57
29
8
31
4
51
8
8 4
22
36 41
29
30
2
28 29
Feature Multi-Pass Processing
Domain-Specific Enhancement
(PEFT)
Use Case for
Trax
Ideal for creating a "quality" processing
path that users can select for critical
transcripts. Enables creation of lightweight,
specialized "modules" for different
verticals.
In summary, the path to 99.5%+ accuracy for Trax v2 is not through a single architectural leap but
through a layered, intelligent approach. By implementing a multi-pass processing pipeline, Trax can
offer superior accuracy as a selectable feature. By integrating PEFT techniques like LoRA, Trax can
provide deep domain specialization without sacrificing its core generality or performance, positioning
itself as a versatile and powerful tool for a wide range of professional use cases.
Mastering Conversational Audio: State-of-the-Art Speaker
Diarization and Voice Profiling
Speaker diarization—the process of identifying who spoke when in a conversation—is a critical
feature for any modern transcription platform, transforming a monolithic transcript into an
actionable document. For Trax v2, achieving robust and accurate speaker diarization is paramount,
especially given the user's interest in handling conversations. The current state of the art offers a
spectrum of solutions, from established open-source frameworks to cutting-edge deep learning
models, each with distinct trade-offs in accuracy, latency, and resource consumption.
The most effective speaker diarization systems today are typically modular, combining several
components: a Voice Activity Detector (VAD) to segment the audio into speech turns, an
embedding extractor to generate a compact speaker representation ("d-vector" or "x-vector") for
each turn, and a clustering algorithm to group these embeddings by speaker . Frameworks like
Pyannote.audio have become a de facto standard in this space, offering a well-engineered
implementation of this pipeline . However, recent advancements in end-to-end (E2E) neural
speaker diarization promise to simplify this process. Models like EEND (End-to-End Neural
Speaker Diarization) replace the separate clustering step with a single neural network that predicts
the number of speakers and assigns a label to each frame of the input . While promising, E2E
models often face challenges with latency and require fixed speaker limits, making them less suitable
for real-time applications or scenarios with an unknown number of participants .
Comparative studies provide crucial insights into the performance of these systems. In a direct
comparison on a hobbyist-grade project, Taishin Maeda evaluated Pyannote.audio against NVIDIA
NeMo on two different audio files . On a 5-minute, two-speaker file, NeMo achieved a lower
Diarization Error Rate (DER) of 16.1% compared to Pyannote's 25.2%, albeit at the cost of double
the execution time (63.9s vs 31.3s). On a more challenging 9-minute, nine-speaker file, Pyannote
performed slightly better with a DER of 8.3% versus NeMo's 9.7% (with pre-identified speakers) .
Another study benchmarked various systems on the Voxconverse dataset and found that DIART,
based on pyannote/segmentation and pyannote/embedding, had the lowest latency at
9
10 12
7 13
13
12
12
just 0.057 seconds per chunk on a CPU, whereas another E2E model, UIS-RNN-SML, became
impractically slow on long recordings . These findings suggest that for a project like Trax, which
values both accuracy and performance, a hybrid approach might be optimal: using a highly efficient,
lightweight system like DIART or a custom-built module for initial, real-time processing, and
reserving heavier, more accurate models like Pyannote for post-processing or user-selected
"enhanced" analysis modes.
Latency is a critical factor, especially for real-time applications. Most modern systems operate with
some degree of look-ahead, analyzing a few hundred milliseconds of future audio to make more
confident decisions about speaker changes and endpointing. Bilal Rahou et al. proposed a causal
segmentation model that uses a multi-latency look-ahead during training, allowing it to dynamically
adjust its latency to balance performance with speed, nearly matching offline model accuracy with
just 500ms of look-ahead . In contrast, AssemblyAI's diarization model is currently limited to
asynchronous transcription, not real-time streams, highlighting the technical hurdles involved . For
Trax v2, a configurable latency setting would be a powerful feature, allowing users to trade a slight
delay for significantly improved accuracy in detecting overlapping speech and speaker turns.
Beyond simple diarization, voice profiling and privacy-preserving methods represent the next
frontier. Speaker identification, the task of labeling who a speaker is, can be enhanced by adapting
models like ECAPA-TDNN with speaker embeddings, which has been shown to improve DER on
children's speech data . For privacy-sensitive applications, techniques like zero-party
authentication, where no actual voice samples are stored, become essential. Furthermore, a novel and
highly effective technique involves using a Large Language Model (LLM) as a post-processing step to
correct diarization errors. Researchers fine-tuned a Mistral 7b model on the Fisher corpus to analyze
transcripts from various ASR systems and correct speaker labels, demonstrating an ASR-agnostic
correction capability that significantly improved accuracy . This opens up a fascinating possibility
for Trax v2: after producing a raw transcript with speaker labels, it could run the text through a
specialized LLM-based diarization-corrector to produce a polished, expertly labeled version. This
approach decouples the core transcription task from the complex, context-dependent task of speaker
attribution, potentially leading to higher overall accuracy and greater flexibility.
System /
Technique
Key Strengths Key Weaknesses Latency Profile Source(s)
Pyannote.audio
High accuracy, mature
ecosystem, extensive
documentation.
Slower than some
alternatives, especially
on long audio.
~31s for 5min
audio on RTX
3090.
NVIDIA
NeMo
Lower DER than
Pyannote on short,
clean audio.
Slower execution time,
requires more GPU
memory.
~64s for 5min
audio on RTX
3090.
DIART
(pyannote)
Extremely low latency
(~57ms/chunk on
CPU), scalable.
May be less accurate
than fully optimized
models on very
challenging data.
Very low
latency (0.057s
per chunk).
10
16
18
19
20 50
12
12
10
System /
Technique
Key Strengths Key Weaknesses Latency Profile Source(s)
UIS-RNN-SML
High accuracy, but
latency increases
dramatically with
audio length.
Becomes impractical
for long recordings
(>9s for 9min audio).
High latency
that scales with
audio duration.
LLM Post-
Processing
ASR-agnostic, can fix
contextual errors,
improves accuracy.
Adds computational
overhead, requires a
fine-tuned LLM.
Not specified,
but adds to
overall
processing
time.
SelfVC
Framework
No explicit speaker
labels needed, works
on unlabeled data.
Focuses on voice
conversion, not
diarization.
Not applicable.
Ultimately, the choice of speaker diarization technology for Trax v2 depends on the desired user
experience. A pure hobby project might prioritize a quick and easy integration of a library like
Pyannote.audio. A more ambitious v2 could implement a dual-pathway architecture: a fast, low-
latency pathway for real-time transcription and a slower, more accurate pathway for post-processing
that employs advanced techniques like E2E models or LLM-based correction. This would give users
control over the trade-off between immediacy and precision, delivering a truly state-of-the-art
conversational transcription experience.
Architectural Evolution: From Iterative Refinement to Scalable
Cloud-Native Systems
To realize the ambitions of Trax v2—achieving 99.5%+ accuracy, supporting thousands of
concurrent users, and enabling advanced features like multi-pass processing and domain-specific
models—the underlying architecture must evolve significantly from the current production-ready,
protocol-based design. The existing architecture, centered on a batch processor with parallel workers,
excels at deterministic, sequential tasks. However, the new requirements demand a more dynamic,
distributed, and service-oriented structure. This evolution will involve decomposing the monolith
into microservices, adopting a message-driven communication pattern, and embracing cloud-native
principles for scalability and resilience.
The most fundamental architectural change required is the transition from a synchronous, blocking
batch processor to an asynchronous, event-driven workflow. The current system processes files in a
tight loop, which is simple but inefficient for the complex pipelines envisioned for v2. An event-
driven architecture (EDA) is far better suited. In this model, the process begins when a user uploads
a file. The system creates a TranscriptionJob event containing metadata (file ID, source
language, requested enhancements) and publishes it to a message broker like Apache Kafka or
RabbitMQ. This immediately returns control to the user, fulfilling the low-latency requirement for
10
20 50
24 26
initiating a job. Multiple, independent worker services then subscribe to this topic. One worker might
handle the initial audio preprocessing, another the primary transcription, a third the speaker
diarization, and so on. Each service performs its task and, upon completion, publishes a new event
(e.g., PrimaryTranscriptionComplete) with its output, triggering the next service in the
chain. This decouples the processing stages, allowing them to scale independently and fail without
bringing down the entire system. It also naturally enables the multi-pass and multi-model processing
flows discussed previously, where the output of one model becomes the input for another.
This EDA forms the basis for a microservice architecture. Instead of a single, large application, Trax
v2 would consist of a collection of small, focused services: 1. API Gateway: The single entry point
for all client requests. It authenticates users, routes requests to the appropriate backend service, and
aggregates responses. 2. Transcription Service: Manages the lifecycle of transcription jobs, interacting
with the message broker to trigger and coordinate workflows. 3. Worker Services: Specialized
services for different processing tasks (e.g., WhisperWorker, DeepSeekEnhancer,
DiarizationWorker). These can be scaled independently based on their computational
intensity. 4. Model Management Service: Handles the loading, caching, and versioning of machine
learning models. This is crucial for efficiently swapping in different PEFT-adapted models for
various domains. 5. Storage Service: Manages access to the PostgreSQL database and object storage
for audio files and processed transcripts. 6. Metrics & Logging Service: Collects telemetry data to
monitor system health, performance, and error rates.
This modular design offers immense benefits. It allows teams to develop and deploy services
independently, facilitates experimentation with new models, and improves maintainability. For
example, if a new, more accurate diarization model is released, only the Diarization Worker needs to
be updated and redeployed, without touching the rest of the system.
Scalability is a key success metric, targeting 1000+ concurrent transcriptions. This is best achieved
through containerization and orchestration. Docker should be used to package each service, ensuring
consistency across development and production environments. Kubernetes would then serve as the
orchestrator, managing the deployment, scaling, and operation of these containers. Kubernetes'
Horizontal Pod Autoscaler (HPA) can automatically increase the number of replicas for a service like
the WhisperWorker when CPU utilization or the length of the message queue exceeds a
threshold, and decrease them when load is low. This ensures resources are used efficiently. To meet
the <1GB memory per worker target, careful selection of container base images and optimization of
the Python environment (e.g., using uv as planned) is critical. Additionally, using smaller, more
efficient models, such as quantized versions of Whisper, can further reduce memory footprint .
Finally, the architecture must incorporate mechanisms for cost optimization and reliability. Caching
is a powerful tool. Transcripts of frequently used content or common phrases can be cached in a
system like Redis to avoid redundant processing and reduce API costs. Intelligent caching of
intermediate results from multi-pass processing can also yield significant performance gains. For
reliability, the system must be designed for failure. This includes implementing idempotency keys for
API requests to prevent duplicate processing, using dead-letter queues in the message broker to
handle failed messages for later inspection, and ensuring all services are stateless so they can be
restarted or replaced without losing data. With a cloud-native architecture built on these principles,
Trax v2 can confidently scale to meet demanding workloads while remaining performant, cost-
effective, and resilient.
17
Optimizing for Scale and Speed: Strategies for Concurrent
Transcription and Resource Efficiency
Achieving the ambitious targets of 1000+ concurrent transcriptions and <$0.005 per transcript
requires a multi-faceted approach to optimization, focusing on workload distribution, resource
management, and computational efficiency. The foundation of this effort lies in moving beyond the
current single-machine, multi-worker setup to a distributed, cloud-native architecture capable of
horizontal scaling. This involves leveraging containerization, message queues, and efficient model
deployment strategies to maximize throughput and minimize operational costs.
The first step toward high concurrency is to eliminate bottlenecks in the processing pipeline. As
previously discussed, transitioning to an event-driven architecture with a message broker is central.
This decouples the frontend from the backend processing, allowing the system to accept thousands
of new transcription jobs instantly without being blocked by the processing capacity. The message
broker acts as a buffer, smoothing out spikes in demand. The workers that consume from this queue
can then be deployed as a scalable Kubernetes deployment. When the volume of jobs increases,
Kubernetes can automatically spin up more worker pods to consume messages from the queue in
parallel, distributing the load across multiple machines or cores. This horizontal scaling is the most
direct way to handle thousands of concurrent users.
Efficient resource management within each worker is equally critical. The goal is to keep the memory
usage below 1GB per worker. This can be achieved through several techniques. First, selecting leaner
base images for Docker containers (e.g., python:slim instead of a full OS image) and carefully
managing dependencies is important. Second, and most critically, is the use of Post-Training
Quantization (PTQ). PTQ is a technique that converts the floating-point weights of a trained model
into lower-bitwidth integers (e.g., 8-bit or 4-bit) without retraining, significantly reducing the model's
memory footprint and accelerating computation. Research has shown that w8-a8 quantization (8-bit
weights, 8-bit activations) generally preserves accuracy, while w4-a8 can cause significant degradation
in smaller models but is surprisingly robust in larger ones like Whisper Small . Methods like GPTQ
and SpQR have demonstrated strong robustness across configurations . By applying PTQ, Trax
can deploy multiple instances of the Whisper model on a single GPU, drastically increasing batch
processing capacity and reducing the overall hardware cost per transcription.
Further computational efficiency can be gained by optimizing the processing logic itself. For multi-
pass systems, as explored in the accuracy section, one study successfully reduced the frame rate of
the second pass by 50% without affecting final accuracy, leading to a 20% reduction in Real-Time
Factor (RTF) and 13% power savings . This principle can be applied to Trax's v2 processing
pipeline, where the initial, faster pass can be executed with a higher frame rate, and a more
computationally intensive second pass can run at a lower frame rate on a subset of the audio. This
targeted optimization focuses compute resources where they are most needed, improving overall
efficiency.
Cost optimization is intrinsically linked to resource efficiency. The target of <$0.005 per transcript is
aggressive and will only be met by minimizing every component of the cost equation: compute,
storage, and data transfer. Beyond model quantization and efficient pipelines, strategic use of spot
instances or preemptible VMs in the cloud can dramatically reduce compute costs, provided the
17
17
22
system is designed to gracefully handle interruptions. Storage costs can be managed by using tiered
storage, where raw audio files are stored in cheaper archival storage and only moved to high-
performance storage when actively being processed. Data transfer costs, particularly if using a cloud
provider, can be minimized by running the API gateway, message broker, and worker services within
the same availability zone or region. Finally, intelligent caching, as mentioned earlier, can reduce the
need for reprocessing identical content, saving both time and compute cycles.
The following table summarizes key optimization strategies and their potential impact:
Optimization
Strategy
Description Potential Impact Source(s)
Event-Driven
Architecture
Use a message broker (e.g.,
Kafka) to decouple job
submission from
processing.
Enables thousands of
concurrent job submissions
and independent scaling of
worker services.
Analytical
Reasoning
Horizontal Scaling
Deploy worker services as
scalable Kubernetes
deployments.
Directly supports handling
thousands of concurrent
transcription tasks.
Post-Training
Quantization
(PTQ)
Reduce model size by
converting weights to
lower-bitwidth integers
(e.g., w4-a8).
Reduces memory usage,
accelerates inference, and
increases batch size, lowering
cost per transcript.
Efficient Multi-
Pass Pipelines
Reduce computational load
in later passes (e.g., by
lowering frame rate).
Decreases overall latency and
computational cost without
sacrificing accuracy.
Cloud-Native Cost
Management
Utilize spot/preemptible
instances, regional
deployments, and tiered
storage.
Drastically reduces compute
and data transfer costs,
meeting aggressive pricing
targets.
Parameter-
Efficient Fine-
Tuning (PEFT)
Use LoRA or similar
methods for domain
adaptation.
Avoids deploying large, full-
scale fine-tuned models, saving
memory and storage.
By systematically applying these strategies, Trax v2 can build a highly performant, scalable, and cost-
effective platform. The architectural shift to a distributed, event-driven system provides the necessary
foundation for concurrency. Within that system, optimizations in model quantization, pipeline
design, and cloud resource management will ensure that the performance and cost targets are not just
met, but exceeded.
22
17
22
5
28 31
The User Experience Imperative: Designing a Modern Interface
and Workflow
While backend performance and feature set are crucial, the ultimate success of Trax v2 hinges on a
seamless and intuitive user experience. For a hobby project aimed at becoming a serious tool, the
user interface must evolve from a functional but dated Command Line Interface (CLI) to a modern,
web-based platform that simplifies complex workflows and provides powerful, accessible tools for
reviewing and editing transcripts. The focus should be on streamlining the path from audio upload to
final, usable text, catering to the needs of researchers, journalists, and other professionals who rely
on accurate transcription.
The immediate priority is the development of a comprehensive web interface. This interface should
be built using a modern front-end framework like React or Vue.js, ensuring a responsive and mobile-
friendly design . The core workflow should be clear and logical. Upon visiting the site, a user
should see a prominent "Upload Audio" button. After uploading a file, the system should present a
clean dashboard displaying the status of the transcription job. Once the job is complete, the interface
should display the transcript in a readable format. Crucially, this is not just a static display. The
transcript should be interactive, allowing users to click on any word to hear the corresponding audio
snippet, a feature that greatly aids verification and correction.
One of the most valuable additions to enhance the user experience is real-time collaboration. While
the user indicated no critical integrations, the ability for multiple users to review, edit, and comment
on a single transcript simultaneously is a powerful productivity tool. This feature, however, presents a
significant engineering challenge, especially regarding performance. To support this, Trax v2 must be
architected with real-time capabilities from the ground up. This likely involves using WebSockets or a
similar persistent connection technology to facilitate low-latency updates. The system must be
designed to handle concurrent edits efficiently, perhaps using Operational Transformation (OT) or
Conflict-Free Replicated Data Types (CRDTs) to merge changes from multiple users without
conflict. The target of <500ms latency for updates is achievable but will require a highly optimized
backend and a well-designed front-end architecture .
The interface should also provide advanced export options and a flexible workflow. Users should be
able to download transcripts in a variety of formats, including SRT for subtitles, DOCX for editable
documents, and JSON for programmatic access. Integration with popular note-taking platforms like
Obsidian or Notion, though not a "critical" partner, would be a significant value-add and could be
implemented via a browser extension or bookmarklet that allows users to send highlighted text
directly to their preferred tool. The workflow should be streamlined, minimizing clicks and cognitive
load. For example, after correcting an error, the user should be able to immediately request a new
translation of a specific sentence or paragraph without having to re-run the entire transcription job.
Finally, the design must be tailored to different user types. A researcher may need to tag specific
sections of the transcript with metadata, while a journalist may prioritize quick searching and
quoting. The interface should be adaptable, perhaps through user profiles or customizable
dashboards, to accommodate these varying needs. The goal is to create an interface that feels both
powerful and intuitive, empowering users to leverage the advanced capabilities of the Trax engine
without being overwhelmed by its complexity. By investing in a modern, collaborative, and user-
25
3
centric web interface, Trax v2 can transform from a powerful engine into an indispensable tool for
anyone working with spoken language.
Synthesizing the Future: A Roadmap for Trax v2 Implementation
and Success
The journey from Trax v1.0.0 to a next-generation transcription platform is an exciting opportunity
to build a system that is not only faster and more accurate but also architecturally robust and user-
centric. The research clearly indicates that the path forward involves a deliberate and phased
implementation, starting with foundational architectural upgrades before layering on advanced
features. This synthesis outlines a practical roadmap to guide the development of Trax v2, ensuring
that the project remains focused, manageable, and aligned with the user's goals of performance and
ambition.
Phase 1: Foundation and Core Pipeline (4-6 Weeks)
The initial phase must establish the groundwork for all future enhancements. The primary objective
is to overhaul the current architecture. 1. Architectural Decomposition: Begin by breaking down the
monolithic CLI and batch processor into a suite of microservices. Develop the core services: an API
Gateway, a Transcription Service, and a set of generic Worker Services. Integrate a message broker
(e.g., Kafka) to enable the event-driven workflow. 2. Implement Multi-Pass Engine: Build the core
engine for multi-pass processing. This involves designing a workflow definition language or
configuration system that allows for the chaining of different models (e.g., a fast Whisper variant
followed by a DeepSeek enhancement pass). This phase should focus on the orchestration logic
rather than building entirely new models. 3. Establish Baseline Accuracy: Implement the current
best-in-class single-pass accuracy pipeline using the existing Whisper and DeepSeek models. This
serves as a stable baseline against which the improvements from Phase 2 can be measured.
Document performance metrics (e.g., 95%+ WER on test sets).
Phase 2: Advanced Features and Domain Adaptation (6-8 Weeks)
With the new architecture in place, this phase focuses on adding the advanced features that
differentiate Trax v2. 1. Integrate Speaker Diarization: Implement a robust speaker diarization
system. A pragmatic approach would be to integrate a lightweight, efficient library like DIART for
real-time processing and pair it with a more accurate model like Pyannote.audio for post-processing.
Add user-facing controls to toggle diarization on/off and select the level of detail. 2. Deploy
Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT): Implement a system for applying PEFT methods like
LoRA. This involves creating a Model Management Service that can handle the storage and loading
of adapter modules. Develop a user interface or API endpoint for selecting a domain-specific model
for a particular job. 3. Develop Confidence Scoring: Implement a confidence scoring mechanism.
Given the mixed results in the literature, a practical approach would be to extract available scores
from the underlying models and provide them as a supplementary tool, clearly documenting their
limitations. Do not treat them as a reliable error detection mechanism.
Phase 3: Scalability and Optimization (4-6 Weeks)
This phase is dedicated to ensuring the platform can handle high loads and remain cost-effective. 1.
Containerize the Application: Package all microservices into Docker containers. This ensures
portability and lays the groundwork for deployment. 2. Orchestrate with Kubernetes: Deploy the
application on a Kubernetes cluster. Configure Horizontal Pod Autoscalers (HPA) to automatically
scale the worker services based on message queue depth or CPU load. 3. Optimize for Performance
and Cost: Apply Post-Training Quantization (PTQ) to the core Whisper model to reduce its memory
footprint and accelerate inference. Benchmark the system to verify that the <1GB memory per
worker and <$0.005 per transcript targets are met. Optimize the multi-pass pipeline for
computational efficiency.
Phase 4: User Interface and Polishing (2-4 Weeks)
The final phase brings the platform to life for the user. 1. Build the Web Interface: Develop a
modern, responsive web interface using a framework like React or Vue.js. This interface should
manage the entire workflow: uploading files, monitoring job status, viewing and editing transcripts,
and downloading results. 2. Implement Real-Time Collaboration: Develop the back-end and front-
end logic for real-time collaboration. Start with basic functionality (e.g., shared cursor, simultaneous
highlighting) and iterate based on usability testing. 3. Final Testing and Documentation: Conduct
comprehensive testing, including performance benchmarks against the v1.0.0 baseline. Generate
detailed documentation for developers and end-users.
In conclusion, the development of Trax v2 is a feasible and highly rewarding endeavor. By following
this structured roadmap, the project can systematically address the key challenges of architecture,
accuracy, scalability, and user experience. The most critical decision is the architectural pivot to a
distributed, event-driven system. This choice will unlock the ability to implement multi-pass
processing, PEFT, and high concurrency, transforming Trax from a competent tool into a powerful
and scalable platform for the future of speech recognition.
Reference
Iteratively Improving Speech Recognition and Voice Conversion https://arxiv.org/abs/
2305.15055
Two-Pass End-to-End Speech Recognition - Google Research https://research.google/pubs/
two-pass-end-to-end-speech-recognition/
Two-pass endpoint detection for speech recognition - arXiv https://arxiv.org/html/
2401.08916v1
[1908.10992] Two-Pass End-to-End Speech Recognition - ar5iv - arXiv https://
ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html/1908.10992
Align-Refine: Non-autoregressive speech recognition via iterative ... https://
www.amazon.science/publications/align-refine-non-autoregressive-speech-recognition-via-
iterative-realignment
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Two-Pass Endpoint Detection for Speech Recognition - IEEE Xplore https://
ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10389743/
[PDF] End-to-End Neural Speaker Diarization with an Iterative Refinement ... https://www.isca-
archive.org/interspeech_2022/rybicka22_interspeech.pdf
Two-Pass End-to-End Speech Recognition - ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/335830044_Two-Pass_End-to-End_Speech_Recognition
An enhanced deep learning approach for speaker diarization using ... https://www.nature.com/
articles/s41598-025-09385-1
Systematic Evaluation of Online Speaker Diarization Systems ... - arXiv https://arxiv.org/html/
2407.04293v1
[Literature Review] Two-pass Endpoint Detection for Speech ... https://www.themoonlight.io/
en/review/two-pass-endpoint-detection-for-speech-recognition
Pyannote.audio vs Nvidia Nemo, and Post-Processing Approach ... https://docs.voice-ping.com/
voiceping-corporation-company-profile/apr-2024-speaker-diarization-performance-evaluation-
pyannoteaudio-vs-nvidia-nemo-and-post-processing-approach-using-openais-gpt-4-turbo-1
A Review of Common Online Speaker Diarization Methods - arXiv https://arxiv.org/html/
2406.14464v1
Exploring the trade-off between speed and accuracy in real-time ... https://
blog.speechmatics.com/latency_accuracy
[PDF] Latency and Quality Trade-offs for Simultaneous Speech-to-Speech ... https://www.isca-
archive.org/interspeech_2023/dugan23_interspeech.pdf
[PDF] Multi-latency look-ahead for streaming speaker segmentation https://www.isca-
archive.org/interspeech_2024/rahou24_interspeech.pdf
Edge-ASR: Towards Low-Bit Quantization of Automatic Speech ... https://arxiv.org/html/
2507.07877v2
What is speaker diarization and how does it work? (Complete 2025 ... https://assemblyai.com/
blog/what-is-speaker-diarization-and-how-does-it-work
Optimizing Speaker Diarization for the Classroom https://jedm.educationaldatamining.org/
index.php/JEDM/article/download/841/240
LLM-based speaker diarization correction: A generalizable approach https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167639325000391
A review of the best ASR engines and the models powering them in ... https://www.gladia.io/
blog/a-review-of-the-best-asr-engines-and-the-models-powering-them-in-2024
Efficient Cascaded Streaming ASR System Via Frame Rate Reduction https://
ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10389645/
Iterative refinement, not training objective, makes HuBERT behave ... https://arxiv.org/html/
2508.08110v1
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
SelfVC: Voice Conversion With Iterative Refinement using Self ... https://research.nvidia.com/
labs/conv-ai/publications/2024/2024-selfvc/
[PDF] Comparative Analysis of Personalized Voice Activity Detection ... https://www.isca-
archive.org/interspeech_2024/buddi24_interspeech.pdf
(PDF) SelfVC: Voice Conversion With Iterative Refinement using ... https://
www.researchgate.net/publication/
381121265_SelfVC_Voice_Conversion_With_Iterative_Refinement_using_Self_Transformations
Thinking aloud.. LoRA & Prompt Tuning - DeepLearning.AI https://
community.deeplearning.ai/t/thinking-aloud-lora-prompt-tuning/465150
A Domain Adaptation Framework for Speech Recognition Systems ... https://arxiv.org/html/
2501.12501v1
Low-Resource Domain Adaptation for Speech LLMs via Text-Only ... https://arxiv.org/html/
2506.05671v1
A Comparison of Parameter-Efficient ASR Domain Adaptation ... https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/
document/10445894/
[PDF] Smarter Fine-Tuning: How LoRA Enhances Large Language Models https://hal.science/
hal-04983079/document
Fine-tuning ASR Models: Boosting Accuracy and Adaptability https://lamarr-institute.org/blog/
fine-tuning-asr-models/
Fine-Tuning Transformers Efficiently: A Survey on LoRA and Its Impact https://
www.preprints.org/manuscript/202502.1637/v1
Parameter-efficient adaptation with multi-channel adversarial ... https://asmp-
eurasipjournals.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13636-025-00406-5
[PDF] Low Rank Adaptation for Multilingual Speech Emotion Recognition https://www.isca-
archive.org/interspeech_2024/goncalves24_interspeech.pdf
[PDF] The Role of LoRA in Parameter-Efficient Adaptation | TechRxiv https://
www.techrxiv.org/users/887510/articles/1269329/master/file/data/
Revolutionizing_Large_Model_Fine_Tuning__The_Role_of_LoRA_in_Parameter_Efficient_Adaptation/
Revolutionizing_Large_Model_Fine_Tuning__The_Role_of_LoRA_in_Parameter_Efficient_Adaptation.pdf
Machine Learning Confidence Scores — All You Need to Know as a ... https://medium.com/
voice-tech-global/machine-learning-confidence-scores-all-you-need-to-know-as-a-conversation-
designer-8babd39caae7
How to Use Confidence Scores in Machine Learning Models - Mindee https://
www.mindee.com/blog/how-use-confidence-scores-ml-models
Evaluating ASR Confidence Scores for Automated Error Detection in ... https://arxiv.org/html/
2503.15124v1
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
Using transcription confidence scores to improve slot filling in ... - AWS https://
aws.amazon.com/blogs/machine-learning/using-transcription-confidence-scores-to-improve-
slot-filling-in-amazon-lex/
[PDF] Prompt-tuning in ASR systems for efficient domain-adaptation https://
assets.amazon.science/cf/6f/65b75c8544fabc2e2adab334140c/prompt-tuning-in-asr-systems-
for-efficient-domain-adaptation.pdf
Modular Domain Adaptation for Conformer-Based Streaming ASR https://
www.researchgate.net/publication/373248113_Modular_Domain_Adaptation_for_Conformer-
Based_Streaming_ASR
[PDF] Improving Speech Recognition with Prompt-based Contextualized ... https://www.isca-
archive.org/interspeech_2024/manhtienanh24_interspeech.pdf
Prompting Large Language Models for Zero-Shot Domain ... https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/377538976_Prompting_Large_Language_Models_for_Zero-
Shot_Domain_Adaptation_in_Speech_Recognition
What is the significance of confidence scores in speech recognition? https://zilliz.com/ai-faq/
what-is-the-significance-of-confidence-scores-in-speech-recognition
What is the significance of confidence scores in speech recognition? https://milvus.io/ai-quick-
reference/what-is-the-significance-of-confidence-scores-in-speech-recognition
What do confidence scores mean in speech recognition? https://stackoverflow.com/questions/
61331681/what-do-confidence-scores-mean-in-speech-recognition
[PDF] Using Automatically Created Confidence Measures - LSEG https://www.lseg.com/
content/dam/data-analytics/en_us/documents/white-papers/lseg-itg-automatic-transcript-
research-paper.pdf
Ensuring Transcription Accuracy: Techniques and Best Practices https://waywithwords.net/
resource/transcription-accuracy-best-practices/
LLM-based speaker diarization correction: A generalizable approach https://arxiv.org/html/
2406.04927v3
How accurate is speech-to-text in 2025? - AssemblyAI https://www.assemblyai.com/blog/how-
accurate-speech-to-text
Survey of End-to-End Multi-Speaker Automatic Speech Recognition ... https://arxiv.org/html/
2505.10975v1
Speech-to-Text APIs: Key Players and Innovations in 2024 - Krisp https://krisp.ai/blog/speech-
to-text-apis-key-players-and-innovations-in-2024/
Moving beyond word error rate to evaluate automatic speech ... https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0165178125003385
Top Real-Time Speech-to-Text Tools in 2024 - Galileo AI https://galileo.ai/blog/best-real-time-
speech-to-text-tools
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
