arXiv:2610.24809v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Speech recognition in real time in far-field conversational settings still incurs significant errors. Identifying potential error spans during stre...
By Sankalp Parashar, Preethi Jyothi, Sunita Sarawagi
arXiv:2608.28916v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems are commonly evaluated with word error rate (WER), yet many voice workflows depend on exact written values f...
By Tyler Baumgartner, Brandon Tai, Lisa Kaelin-Martin, Candice Fan, Luc Debaupte, Bill Wang, Yi Zhong
The paper investigates how to evaluate generative audio large language models (Audio‑LLMs) on known closed‑set tasks by separating the decision to call a generative model from the use of acoustic evidence. It introduces a controlled call‑decision framework where a policy can choose between a transcript label, encoder evidence from CLAP, AST, or WavLM, or a generative call to Qwen2‑Audio, Qwen2.5‑Omni, or MOSS‑Audio, and measures the impact of generative calls on accuracy. Results on the VocalSound dataset show that while transcript‑only accuracy is low (0.296), encoder‑based controls achieve high accuracy (≈0.85) without any generative calls, and adding generative calls yields only a marginal improvement (0.925 vs. 0.921).
By Mengzhe Geng
The paper introduces a cause-aware error recovery framework for cascaded Automatic Speech Recognition – Large Language Model (ASR‑LLM) pipelines in Spoken Dialogue Systems. It replaces simple ASR confidence filtering with precision‑focused detectors that use deep ASR latent representations to classify token‑level errors into perception, comprehension, and deletion failures. This fine‑grained diagnosis enables the LLM to execute targeted, multi‑turn clarification strategies, leading to a more than two‑fold increase in recall on domain‑shift errors and significant reductions in word error rate and downstream task errors across varied accents, distortions, and domains.
By Yizhou Peng, Ziyang Ma, Changsong Liu, Yi-Wen Chao, Xie Chen, Eng Siong Chng
The paper investigates how to evaluate audio‑language models by separating the use of acoustic evidence from the need to invoke a generative audio model. Using a controlled call‑decision framework, the authors compare policies that rely on transcript labels, encoder outputs from CLAP, AST, or WavLM, and optional calls to generative models such as Qwen2‑Audio, Qwen2.5‑Omni, or MOSS‑Audio. Results on the VocalSound dataset show that while transcript‑only accuracy is low (0.296), encoder‑only controls achieve high accuracy (≈0.85) without any generative calls, and adding generative calls yields only a marginal improvement (0.925 vs. 0.921).
By Mengzhe Geng
The paper introduces a reproducible framework that converts existing text-based tool‑calling benchmarks into audio‑based evaluations using text‑to‑speech, speaker variation, and environmental noise, while preserving original annotations. Experiments on seven omni‑modal models show that performance varies strongly by model and task, with notable gaps between text and voice results. The study also includes a stress test, a reference‑free LLM‑as‑judge protocol, and demonstrates that open‑source judges can match proprietary ones, aiding privacy‑preserving evaluation.
By Md Tahmid Rahman Laskar, Xue-Yong Fu, Seyyed Saeed Sarfjoo, Quinten McNamara, Jonas Robertson, Shashi Bhushan TN