Conversational automatic speech recognition remains challenging due to overlapping speech, far-field noise, and varying speaker counts. While recent LLM-based systems perform well on single-speaker benchmarks, their robustness in multi-speaker settings is unclear. We systematically compare LLM-based and modular pipeline approaches along four axes: overlap robustness, semantic fidelity, speaker count, and single- versus multi-channel input. To capture meaning-altering errors that conventional metrics miss, we introduce tcpSemER, which extends tcpWER by replacing Levenshtein distance with embedding-based semantic similarity. We further decompose tcpWER into overlapping and non-overlapping components for finer-grained analysis. Experiments across three datasets show that LLM-based systems are competitive in two-speaker settings but degrade as speaker count and overlap increase, whereas modular pipelines remain more robust.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Relative change in tcpWER and tcpSemER when switching from CHiME-8 to CHiME-7 text normalization, averaged across the top-4 CHiME-8 DASR challenge systems per dataset. Error bars denote standard deviation.
Category
Ref
Hyp
WER
SemER
Δ
Negation
it is lovely
it is not
0.33
0.67
-0.34
Entity
yeah that is a mat
yeah that is a lot
0.20
0.83
-0.63
Filler
that is a great idea chris
that is a great idea chris yeah yeah yeah
0.50
0.05
0.45
Paraphrase
or maybe like a slogan
that could be like a slogan
0.60
0.12
0.48
Table 1: Representative utterance-level divergences between WER and SemER from top-3 NSF1 challenge systems. Δ=WER−SemER ; Δ>0 : WER penalizes more; Δ<0 : SemER penalizes more. Red : substitutions; blue : insertions.
WER
SemER
DER
System
LLM
Ch.
cp
tcp
tcp
MX6 (2 spk, 14% ovl, distributed, ∼ 15 min)
1
DiCoW
–
1ch
14.48
14.71
7.84
21.05
2
VibeVoice
✓
1ch
16.03
16.32
7.51
9.89
3
Voxtral MTv2
✓
1ch
19.37
19.59
10.46
21.97
4
Gemini 3.0
✓
1ch
58.34
115.54
80.79
78.49
Table 2: Results on all datasets. Collars are 5 s (tcpWER) and 0.25 s (DER). All values are in %. For each dataset, we report the number of speakers, the overlap ratio, the microphone setup, and the average meeting duration.
tcpWER (%)
System
Ch.
all
ov
1spk
ov norm
1spk norm
MX6 ( Nrefov=37628 , Nref1spk=32990 )
1
DiCoW
1ch
14.71
8.50
6.21
15.96
13.29
2
VibeVoice
1ch
16.32
10.73
5.59
20.13
11.97
3
CH8 DASR NTT (S)
mch
15.32
7.56
7.76
14.19
16.61
4
VibeVoice + MOVER
mch
10.79
7.05
3.74
13.22
8.01
Table 3: Overlap-aware tcpWER decomposition (%). ov / 1spk : contribution to total error; ovnorm / 1spknorm : normalized by region-specific word count.
Figure 2: Decomposition of tcpWER into deletion, insertion, and substitution errors for VibeVoice (Vib), DiCoW (DiC), and CH8 DASR NTT (NTT) on NSF1, shown by speaker count. The proportion of overlapped speech (ovl) is shown in parentheses.
Multi-talker automatic speech recognition (MT-ASR) remains challenging in the presence of overlapping speech. Hard segmentation introduces irreversible errors, whereas serialized output training (SOT) avoids explicit segmentation but does not condition a pretrained encoder on speaker activity. We propose Soft Posterior Speaker Injection (SPSI). A Soft Posterior Head predicts per-frame speaker posteriors P^ and injects them into Whisper through Multi-layer Feature-wise Linear Modulation (MFLM) and Speaker Memory Prompts (SMP). The benefit of SPSI is largest where overlap is heaviest and under domain transfer. On controlled two-speaker LibriSpeech overlap, SPSI reduces concatenated minimum-permutation word error rate (cpWER) from 61.5% to 60.0% in the high-overlap bin, and from 51.9% to 51.0% on the full set, relative to SOT. By contrast, Speaker CE, SD-CTC, SA-DiCoW, and Pipeline (oracle/est.\ VAD) do not outperform SOT. Freeze-posterior overlap-heavy adaptation reduces held-out LibriCSS cpWER from 42.3% to 36.8% on sessions 8--9, a 5.5-point gain over SOT. The source code is available at https://github.com/HackerHyper/SPSI.
Jian Zhu, Jun Sun, Jiang Yang +6
Zhejiang Lab, Hangzhou, China · Zhejiang International Studies University, Hangzhou, China · University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China
Speech-aware large language models (LLMs) can accept speech inputs, yet their training objectives largely emphasize linguistic content or specific fields such as emotions or the speaker's gender, leaving it unclear whether they encode speaker identity. First, we propose a model-agnostic scoring protocol that produces continuous verification scores for both API-only and open-weight models, using confidence scores or log-likelihood ratios from the Yes/No token probabilities. Using this protocol, we benchmark recent speech-aware LLMs and observe weak speaker discrimination (EERs above 20% on VoxCeleb1). Second, we introduce a lightweight augmentation that equips an LLM with ASV capability by injecting frozen ECAPA-TDNN speaker embeddings through a learned projection and training only LoRA adapters. On TinyLLaMA-1.1B, the resulting ECAPA-LLM achieves 1.03% EER on VoxCeleb1-E, approaching a dedicated speaker verification system while preserving a natural-language interface.
Thomas Thebaud, Yuzhe Wang, Laureano Moro-Velazquez +2
Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA · Human Language Technology Center of Excellence, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
While Large Language Model (LLM) based Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) enables seamless multilingual use, models often misidentify the output language, compromising transcription fidelity and downstream application quality. To preserve flexibility and code-switching capabilities, we propose a soft prompting approach that hints at potential spoken languages without strictly constraining the output. We formally define this challenge as a lack of language adherence, introduce a novel metric to quantify violations, and evaluate three mitigation strategies: (1) zero-shot prompting for robust guidance under uncertainty, (2) supervised fine-tuning (SFT) to improve prompt adherence, and (3) Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning to enforce adherence during decoding. We present a comparative analysis of these methods across multiple languages, evaluating effectiveness in reducing the language violation while maintaining overall ASR performance. Finally, we discuss trade-offs to guide strategy selection under various compute constraints.