With the increasing deployment of automated and agentic systems, ensuring the adversarial robustness of automatic speech recognition (ASR) models has become highly relevant. We observe that changing the precision of an ASR model during inference reduces the likelihood of adversarial attacks to succeed. We take advantage of this fact to make models more robust simply by randomly sampling the precision during prediction. Moreover, this insight can be turned into an adversarial example detection strategy by implementing a simple Gaussian classifier that thresholds the differences between outputs of models run with different precision. To further enhance security boundaries, we combine the approach with an existing uncertainty-based defense mechanism, which forces adaptive adversaries to introduce highly perceptible noise to bypass detection. An experimental analysis across various ASR models, languages, and attack types demonstrates a significant increase in adversarial robustness, competitive detection capabilities, and resistance to adaptive threats.
Figures & tables
ASR Model -
FP32
FP16
BF16
Random sampling precision
Training precision
Test-clean
Test-other
Test-clean
Test-other
Test-clean
Test-other
Test-clean
Test-other
CTC-FP32
02.04 / 25.50
04.02 / 40.42
02.04 / 25.46
04.03 / 40.46
02.05 / 25.57
04.03 / 40.46
02.04 / 25.51
04.02 / 40.44
CTC-FP16
01.98 / 25.15
04.00 / 40.18
01.98 / 25.19
03.99 / 40.08
02.00 / 25.15
04.01 / 40.22
01.98 / 25.16
04.00 / 40.16
CTC-BF16
01.91 / 24.69
03.93 / 40.08
01.91 / 24.73
03.93 / 40.08
01.92 / 24.73
03.95 / 40.15
01.91 / 24.71
03.93 / 40.10
seq2seq-FP32
02.80 / 31.49
08.33 / 56.75
02.80 / 31.56
08.30 / 56.99
03.49 / 38.44
09.28 / 61.89
03.03/ 33.83
08.63 / 58.54
seq2seq-FP16
02.87 / 31.49
08.64 / 57.98
02.92 / 31.95
08.72 / 57.98
05.75 / 59.39
11.97 / 74.04
03.84 / 40.94
09.77 / 63.33
TABLE I: Cross-precision evaluation of ASR systems on benign LibriSpeech data. The first column indicates the training precision of each model, while the remaining columns report performance under different inference precisions. Results are reported as WER / SER on the test-clean and test-other subsets, where lower values indicate better recognition performance. †
ASR Model
FP32
FP16
BF16
Random sampling
CTC-FP32
09.19 / 43.50
09.18 / 43.47
09.18 / 43.42
09.18 / 43.46
CTC-FP16
08.93 / 42.74
08.93 / 42.71
08.95 / 42.79
08.93 / 42.74
CTC-BF16
09.13 / 43.48
09.13 / 43.48
09.12 / 43.40
09.13 / 43.45
seq2seq-FP32
12.95 / 52.03
12.94 / 51.96
13.15 / 52.43
13.01 / 52.14
seq2seq-FP16
13.01 / 52.85
13.21 / 52.87
13.86 / 53.75
13.36 / 53.15
seq2seq-BF16
13.11 / 52.24
13.10 / 52.20
12.93 / 52.81
13.04 / 52.41
TABLE II: Cross-precision evaluation on the Mozilla Common Voice German test set. Columns show inference configurations across different precisions. Results given as WER / SER, where lower values indicate better recognition performance. †
ASR Model -
C&W attack
Psychoacoustic attack
Training precision
FP32
FP16
BF16
Random ↑
SNRseg
FP32
FP16
BF16
Random ↑
SNRseg
CTC-FP32
00.00 / 00.00
06.38 / 28.00
25.72 / 83.00
10.93 / 38.90
18.54
00.00 / 00.00
08.02 / 36.00
25.31 / 84.00
10.74 / 39.30
19.94
CTC-FP16
03.29 / 15.00
00.00 / 00.00
25.93 / 83.00
10.29 / 34.50
17.94
09.47 / 39.00
00.00 / 00.00
30.25 / 89.00
13.81 / 44.00
19.37
CTC-BF16
19.55 / 70.00
18.93 / 67.00
00.00 / 00.00
12.59 / 44.80
17.53
20.78 / 81.00
21.40 / 83.00
00.00 / 00.00
13.87 / 53.30
18.79
seq2seq-FP32
00.00 / 00.00
22.02 / 48.00
34.16 / 77.00
18.50 / 41.20
13.34
00.00 / 00.00
27.16 / 58.00
35.19 / 79.00
21.52 / 47.80
13.85
seq2seq-FP16
56.38 / 95.00
00.41 / 01.00
62.35 / 97.00
40.58 / 66.20
15.89
57.41 / 98.00
00.21 / 01.00
60.70 / 93.00
40.21 / 65.90
16.33
TABLE III: Adversarial robustness evaluation of ASR systems under PVP. Columns show inference configurations across different precisions. For each attack, the final column reports distortion ( SNRseg in dB ); all other entries show WER / SER. Results are evaluated on 100 AEs generated per attack type from the LibriSpeech test-clean set.
ASR Model
FP32
FP16
BF16
Random ↑
SNRseg
CTC-FP32
00.00 / 00.00
09.74 / 41.00
28.57 / 89.00
12.77 / 43.33
18.96
CTC-FP16
08.66 / 35.00
00.00 / 00.00
25.76 / 87.00
11.47 / 40.66
19.74
CTC-BF16
18.61 / 75.00
19.26 / 77.00
00.00 / 00.00
12.62 / 50.67
20.04
seq2seq-FP32
02.81 / 03.00
23.81 / 44.00
39.83 / 75.00
22.15 / 40.66
10.96
seq2seq-FP16
44.37 / 80.00
00.65 / 01.00
48.27 / 82.00
31.09 / 54.30
11.31
seq2seq-BF16
50.65 / 91.00
50.22 / 91.00
01.73 / 02.00
34.20 / 61.33
10.51
TABLE IV: Adversarial robustness evaluation of ASR systems under PVP. Columns show inference configurations across different precisions. The final column reports distortion, while other entries show WER / SER. Results are evaluated on 100 C&W AEs generated from the Mozilla Common Voice test set. Bold marks the highest WER / SER under random sampling. †
ASR Model -
C&W vs.
Psy. vs.
Both (C&W and Psy.) vs. benign
Training precision
benign
benign
PVP
NF
TD
DistriBlock
CTC-FP32
0.92
0.93
0.92
0.89
0.94
0.99
CTC-FP16
0.91
0.95
0.95
0.89
0.93
0.99
CTC-BF16
0.86
0.91
0.91
0.87
0.94
0.99
seq2seq-FP32
0.90
0.93
0.91
0.70
0.83
0.96
seq2seq-FP16
0.97
0.98
0.97
0.73
0.81
0.97
TABLE V: Adversarial detection performance (AUROC) across different defense methods. Benign samples from the LibriSpeech test-clean set are evaluated against their AE counterparts (C&W and Psy). Bold marks the highest detection score. †
ASR Model
PVP
DistriBlock
HybridJS
HybridMP
CTC-FP32
0.92
0.95
0.99
0.95
CTC-FP16
0.94
0.96
0.98
0.95
CTC-BF16
0.86
0.96
0.98
0.96
TABLE VI: Adversarial detection performance (AUROC) across different defense methods. 100 Benign samples from the Common Voice German test set are evaluated against their C&W AE counterparts. Bold marks the highest detection score.
ASR
PVP
DistriBlock
HybridJS
HybridMP
Model
SNRseg /AUROC
SNRseg /AUROC
SNRseg /AUROC
SNRseg /AUROC
CTC-FP32
18.00 / 0.48
14.50 / 0.69
08.79 / 0.63
-00.54 / 0.47
CTC-FP16
17.39 / 0.48
15.34 / 0.68
10.09 / 0.63
03.57 / 0.50
CTC-BF16
18.79 / 0.47
15.01 / 0.70
08.37 / 0.64
01.40 / 0.53
† Bold marks the highest distortion among the generated AEs.
TABLE VII: Adaptive attack detection distortion ( SNRseg in dB ) and performance (AUROC) across defense methods. Evaluated using 100 benign samples from the Common Voice German test set against their adaptive AE counterparts. †
Automatic Speech Recognition systems are notoriously both sensitive to adversarial and benign perturbations. While this has been repeatedly demonstrated using reference datasets, detecting such behaviors in deployed systems is incredibly challenging, due to the absence of oracle knowledge of the true transcription. We demonstrate that employing a certification-inspired mechanism can significantly decrease WER, increase recall, and decrease the Spearman correlation between confidence and WER. We achieve this through a dual-gate diagnostic pipeline: a Two-Sided Atomic Audit that accumulates statistical wealth to certify both token existence and adversarial exclusion, and a Rank-Based Tournament that selects the winning sequence. Our evaluations across four diverse architectures demonstrate up to a 55% relative reduction in Word Error Rate, while also providing granular word- and sentence-level certifications to enhance acoustic security.
Automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems have become widely used for multilingual speech-to-text transcription. Their robustness to adversarial attacks has become an important topic for the community. Existing adversarial attacks directly add adversarial noise to the speech audio. However, prior work has shown that existing adversarial attacks face two limitations: they often transfer poorly to black-box ASR systems and are increasingly mitigated by defenses tailored to input-space perturbations. In this work, we propose a Clean-Referenced Feature-Vocoder Attack, a surrogate-based black-box attack that moves the adversarial search space from raw waveforms to self-supervised learning (SSL) representations. To address the transferability limitation, we perturb more generalizable acoustic-phonetic representations rather than low-level waveform samples, reducing dependence on surrogate-specific waveform gradients and encouraging adversarial perturbations that generalize across ASR systems. To bypass different defenses, we shift the adversarial signal from explicit additive waveform noise to SSL feature-space perturbations and reconstruct them through a vocoder into speech-like waveform adversarial signals, making the resulting samples less aligned with waveform-bounded defenses. Extensive experiments show that, when optimized only on raw Whisper-small as a public surrogate model, our attack transfers effectively to black-box ASR models with a +26.6 WER improvement over the SOTA baseline, while also remaining effective against multiple training defenses with a +36.2 WER improvement. These results reveal a blind spot in current ASR robustness evaluation.
Yifan Liao, Zongmin Zhang, Zhen Sun +3
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · Wuhan University
Many organizations fine-tune publicly available pretrained Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) models and deploy them in black-box settings, assuming limited access provides protection. We show this assumption is fragile: adversarial perturbations crafted on the public base model transfer effectively to fine-tuned target models, severely degrading performance and posing concerns for safety-critical applications. We propose TransferBreaker, a unified fine-tuning framework that suppresses adversarial transfer by integrating Base Adversarial Fine-Tuning, which restricts adversarial training to base-effective perturbations; Latent Jacobian Regularization, which enforces latent-space invariance by suppressing adversarially sensitive directions; and HybridGrad-AFT, which improves robustness against adaptive attacks by interpolating transferable perturbations from base and target gradients. We theoretically justify all components and evaluate TransferBreaker across three languages and four large ASR models, reducing adversarial WER from 92.6 to 27.8. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/rohban-lab/TransferBreaker.
Mojtaba Nafez, Aref Mousavi, Mohammad Ebrahim Mahdavi +3
Department of Computer Engineering Sharif University of Technology · Department of Computer Engineering University of Isfahan