The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
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...
The paper investigates how much of the apparent error in text-to-speech (TTS) systems is actually due to automatic speech recognition (ASR) errors. By transcribing human recordings of test sentences, the authors find that ASR systems miss 33–67% of very rare words on LibriSpeech and FLEURS, and all three recognizers miss 22–42% of such words. Using multiple recognizer families reduces the apparent TTS error on rare words but still leaves them as the hardest to evaluate, indicating that ignoring ASR misses biases the assessment and that a listening test is required.
The paper introduces the Speech-Unsupported Rejection Evaluation Challenge (SURE‑Challenge), a benchmark designed to test whether speech‑LLMs should accept or reject audio inputs before generating answers. Using LibriSpeech‑derived transcriptions paired with first‑word question answering, the authors evaluate various noise and silence conditions, and compare a simple energy‑plus‑Whisper‑score rule against a Qwen2‑Audio front‑end. On a 474‑row test set, the rule rejects 196 of 204 unsupported inputs while preserving accuracy on supported data, revealing a pre‑generation error mode that answer‑only scoring misses.
The paper examines how different data‑augmentation techniques affect low‑resource automatic speech recognition beyond overall error rates. It compares speed perturbation, SpecAugment, and two text‑based audio synthesis methods across four low‑resource languages and English, analyzing phoneme‑level errors. The study finds that SpecAugment improves aggregate performance but increases tone and palatalization errors, while text‑based methods introduce consonant insertions; when combined, each method mitigates the other's weaknesses, yielding superadditive gains that diminish as data size grows to 100 hours.
The paper evaluates whether audio‑language models can use multimodal clinical context to improve dysarthric speech recognition. Using a benchmark built on the Speech Accessibility Project dataset, the authors test diagnosis labels, clinician ratings, and detailed clinical descriptions as prompts for nine models. They find that these prompts yield negligible or negative effects on word error rate, though fine‑tuning with LoRA and mixed prompt formats reduces WER by 52% and benefits certain subgroups such as Down syndrome and mild‑severity speakers.
arXiv:2609.21288v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Surface electromyography (sEMG)-based silent speech interfaces are limited by cross-user variability and calibration burden. We study a limited-data se...