arXiv:2609.27382v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Speech technology penalizes some voices: recognition errs nearly twice as often for Black speakers, and accuracy declines for second-language accents...
By Kian Shamsaie, Iman Modarressi
Automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems exhibit unequal error rates across speaker groups, motivating interventions on their internal representations. We ask whether speaker-linked attributes that...
arXiv:2609.18533v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems exhibit unequal error rates across speaker groups, motivating interventions on their internal representation...
By Nicolas Bourrel, Abderrahmane Issam, Gerasimos Spanakis
arXiv:2609.38106v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Speech-LLMs are expensive to run, making compression important for real-world deployment. However, compressed models are usually selected using aggre...
By Ganesh Pavan Kartikeya Bharadwaj Kolluri, Michael Kampouridis, Ravi Shekhar
arXiv:2608.30853v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: While automatic speech recognition (ASR) models have achieved remarkable improvements in recent years, performance disparities persist across differe...
By Ting-Hui Cheng, Line Katrine Harder Clemmensen, Sneha Das
arXiv:2608. 13624v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Audio Language Models (LALMs) have seen increasing use for audio understanding tasks such as speech recognition and audio question answering, raising concerns about fairness across demographic subgroups.
By Zhe Liu
The paper investigates how post‑training compression techniques—such as pruning, quantization, and distillation—affect demographic fairness in Whisper speech‑recognition models. It finds that pruning and INT4 quantization significantly widen word‑error‑rate gaps between demographic groups, especially for Black/AA and Asian speakers, while distillation tends to reduce these gaps. The study introduces a temporal‑taxation metric to quantify the increased correction effort required for marginalized speakers after compression.
By Srishti Ginjala, Eric Fosler-Lussier, Christopher W. Myers, Srinivasan Parthasarathy
arXiv:2609.36500v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Speaker verification systems encounter combinations of noise, channel distortion, and changes in speech. Evaluating each condition separately does no...
By Kamel Kamel, Hridoy Sankar Dutta, Keshav Sood, Sunil Aryal
arXiv:2606. 10911v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Claims about the robustness and fairness of deepfake speech detectors are only as credible as the datasets used to train and evaluate those systems.
By Vojt\v{e}ch Stan\v{e}k, Eva Trnovsk\'a, Kamil Malinka, Anton Firc
arXiv:2609.35952v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: We introduce HEAR (Human-recorded Evaluation of Audio-LLM bias by Real speakers), a large-scale, ecologically valid benchmark comprising 87k real hum...
By Shen Yan, Duc Le, Irina-Elena Veliche
The paper investigates whether audio‑language models capture paralinguistic cues beyond spoken content. Using the Expresso dataset and four open‑source models, the authors trace how speaking style information is encoded in the late layers of the audio encoder but is degraded before reaching the final output. They find that some models are content‑driven while others are acoustic‑driven, revealing a gap between what is encoded and what is utilized in current audio‑language models.
By Bhuvan Koduru, Dareen Safar B Alharthi, Rita Singh, Bhiksha Raj
arXiv:2607. 16870v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: End-to-end speech language models increasingly represent user speech with speech tokens rather than relying exclusively on cascaded ASR--LLM--TTS pipelines.
By Ye Lu, Yihan Yan, Zhaoyang Zhang, Zhitao Ou, Runze Liu, Li Liu, Shen Wang