Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Miriam Winkler

dblp:375/8113 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
2as first author
4since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 2 first-author · 4 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Question answering and dialogue systems · 77% Information extraction and text analysis · 23%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Question answering and dialogue systems
intent detection
1.012026
Standard-to-Dialect Transfer Trends Differ across Text and Speech: A Case Study on Intent and Topic Classification in German Dialects · ACL (1) 2026
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › text classification
topic classification
0.312026
Standard-to-Dialect Transfer Trends Differ across Text and Speech: A Case Study on Intent and Topic Classification in German Dialects · ACL (1) 2026

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

cross-dialectal transfer · 1.0cascaded systems · 1.0automatic speech recognition · 1.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Standard-to-Dialect Transfer Trends Differ across Text and Speech: A Case Study on Intent and Topic Classification in German Dialects
abstract
Research on cross-dialectal transfer from a standard to a non-standard dialect variety has typically focused on text data.However, dialects are primarily spoken, and non-standard spellings cause issues in text processing.We compare standard-to-dialect transfer in three settings: text models, speech models, and cascaded systems where speech first gets automatically transcribed and then further processed by a text model.We focus on German dialects in the context of written and spoken intent classification -releasing the first dialectal audio intent classification dataset -with supporting experiments on topic classification.The speech-only setup provides the best results on the dialect data while the text-only setup works best on the standard data.While the cascaded systems lag behind the text-only models for German, they perform relatively well on the dialectal data if the transcription system generates normalized, standard-like output.
Verena Blaschke, Miriam Winkler, Barbara Plank
ACL (1)2
2026 Indirect Question Answering in English, German and Bavarian: A Challenging Task for High- and Low-Resource Languages Alike
Miriam Winkler, Verena Blaschke, Barbara Plank
LREC1
2025 A Multi-Dialectal Dataset for German Dialect ASR and Dialect-to-Standard Speech Translation
abstract
Although Germany has a diverse landscape of dialects, they are underrepresented in current automatic speech recognition (ASR) research. To enable studies of how robust models are towards dialectal variation, we present Betthupferl, an evaluation dataset containing four hours of read speech in three dialect groups spoken in Southeast Germany (Franconian, Bavarian, Alemannic), and half an hour of Standard German speech. We provide both dialectal and Standard German transcriptions, and analyze the linguistic differences between them. We benchmark several multilingual state-of-the-art ASR models on speech translation into Standard German, and find differences between how much the output resembles the dialectal vs. standardized transcriptions. Qualitative error analyses of the best ASR model reveal that it sometimes normalizes grammatical differences, but often stays closer to the dialectal constructions.
Verena Blaschke, Miriam Winkler, Constantin Förster, Gabriele Wenger-Glemser, Barbara Plank
INTERSPEECH2
2024 Slot and Intent Detection Resources for Bavarian and Lithuanian: Assessing Translations vs Natural Queries to Digital Assistants
abstract
Digital assistants perform well in high-resource languages like English, where tasks like slot and intent detection (SID) are well-supported. Many recent SID datasets start including multiple language varieties. However, it is unclear how realistic these translated datasets are. Therefore, we extend one such dataset, namely xSID-0.4, to include two underrepresented languages: Bavarian, a German dialect, and Lithuanian, a Baltic language. Both language variants have limited speaker populations and are often not included in multilingual projects. In addition to translations we provide “natural” queries to digital assistants generated by native speakers. We further include utterances from another dataset for Bavarian to build the richest SID dataset available today for a low-resource dialect without standard orthography. We then set out to evaluate models trained on English in a zero-shot scenario on our target language variants. Our evaluation reveals that translated data can produce overly optimistic scores. However, the error patterns in translated and natural datasets are highly similar. Cross-dataset experiments demonstrate that data collection methods influence performance, with scores lower than those achieved with single-dataset translations. This work contributes to enhancing SID datasets for underrepresented languages, yielding NaLiBaSID, a new evaluation dataset for Bavarian and Lithuanian.
Miriam Winkler, Virginija Juozapaityte, Rob van der Goot, Barbara Plank
LREC/COLING1