SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Ratnajit Dhar

Publications and source records attributed to Ratnajit Dhar.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

823-OLT @ BUET DL Sprint 4.0: Context-Aware Windowing for ASR and Fine-Tuned Speaker Diarization in Bengali Long Form Audio

Bengali, despite being one of the most widely spoken languages globally, remains underrepresented in long form speech technology, particularly in systems addressing transcription and speaker attribution. We present frameworks for long form Bengali speech intelligence that address automatic speech recognition using a Whisper Medium based model and speaker diarization using a finetuned segmentation model. The ASR pipeline incorporates vocal separation, voice activity detection, and a gap aware windowing strategy to construct context preserving segments for stable decoding. For diarization, a pretrained speaker segmentation model is finetuned on the official competition dataset (provided as part of the DL Sprint 4.0 competition organized under BUET CSE Fest), to better capture Bengali conversational patterns. The resulting systems deliver both efficient transcription of long form audio and speaker aware transcription to provide scalable speech technology solutions for low resource languages.

cs.SD

Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Models in the Bengali Legal Context: A Comparative Evaluation Using LLM-as-Judge and Legal Experts

Accessing legal help in Bangladesh is hard. People face high fees, complex legal language, a shortage of lawyers, and millions of unresolved court cases. Generative AI models like OpenAI GPT-4.1 Mini, Gemini 2.0 Flash, Meta Llama 3 70B, and DeepSeek R1 could potentially democratize legal assistance by providing quick and affordable legal advice. In this study, we collected 250 authentic legal questions from the Facebook group "Know Your Rights," where verified legal experts regularly provide authoritative answers. These questions were subsequently submitted to four four advanced AI models and responses were generated using a consistent, standardized prompt. A comprehensive dual evaluation framework was employed, in which a state-of-the-art LLM model served as a judge, assessing each AI-generated response across four critical dimensions: factual accuracy, legal appropriateness, completeness, and clarity. Following this, the same set of questions was evaluated by three licensed Bangladeshi legal professionals according to the same criteria. In addition, automated evaluation metrics, including BLEU scores, were applied to assess response similarity. Our findings reveal a complex landscape where AI models frequently generate high-quality, well-structured legal responses but also produce dangerous misinformation, including fabricated case citations, incorrect legal procedures, and potentially harmful advice. These results underscore the critical need for rigorous expert validation and comprehensive safeguards before AI systems can be safely deployed for legal consultation in Bangladesh.

cs.CY