Back to Basics: Revisiting ASR in the Age of Voice Agents

In cascaded voice agents, ASR errors can have markedly different downstream consequences: a small transcription error may leave a tool call unchanged or alter its intent or arguments. Conventional word error rate (WER), however, does not capture these differences. We introduce SpeechEvalX, a paired diagnostic protocol that evaluates how task roles affected by ASR errors influence structured tool calls. Controlled edits are matched by source utterance, edit count, and operation, while task-role labels are compared with lexical severity, BERT cosine distance, Semantic-WER, and binary criticality. Across 594 source utterances, joint call accuracy falls from 82.3% with reference transcripts to 71.9-74.9% across three ASR front ends. Number and negation edits cause 21.9-25.7 percentage-point losses, versus 1.4-2.9 points for control edits. Detailed task-role labels improve source-grouped ROC-AUC from 0.73 to 0.78 over binary criticality, showing that downstream impact depends strongly on the task role affected.

Current voice AI benchmarks typically evaluate isolated capabilities such as speech intelligibility, word error rate, or text-based dialogue quality, but they rarely test whether systems harness the acoustic information that distinguishes spoken language from its textual representation. To this end, we introduce the Real World Voice EQ Bench, a multidimensional benchmark for evaluating voice AI across text-to-speech (TTS), speech-to-speech (STS), speech understanding (SU), and automatic speech recognition (ASR). Our evaluations indicate that performance is highly dimension-specific. For TTS, naturalness, expressiveness, identity stability, and reliability are largely independent evaluation dimensions. For STS, access to audio does not guarantee use of vocal affect, and some agents remain largely transcript-driven. For SU, models perform unevenly across paralinguistic tasks. For ASR, real world accent, emotion, noise, and conversational conditions expose failures that are not captured by established clean-speech benchmarks. Together, these results show that voice AI should be evaluated as a profile of acoustic, expressive, interactional, and robustness capabilities rather than by a single aggregate score.

Large language model (LLM) computer-use agents are typically evaluated with clean written instructions, despite speech being an increasingly popular interface for interacting with such systems. Speech input introduces an additional failure point: transcription errors can alter task-critical entities, constraints, or targets before the agent begins reasoning, while conventional ASR metrics do not directly measure whether the information required for successful execution has been preserved. We introduce Talk2Agent, a benchmark for evaluating how effectively voice interfaces convey human-spoken instructions to LLM-based computer-use agents. Talk2Agent builds human-spoken versions of tasks from WildClawBench and OSWorld and evaluates a range of voice interfaces, including dedicated ASR models, audio-capable LLMs, contextual biasing, and LLM-based ontology repair. Because repeatedly executing long-horizon computer-use tasks is costly and stochastic, we further propose an execution-free, task-conditioned evaluation framework that projects the original task grader onto prompt-addressable intentions and measures how much task-relevant information is retained after the voice interface. On WildClawBench, Talk2Agent's execution-free native projection provides a practical, execution-grounded measure of voice-interface quality, correlating with downstream task completion and improving Pearson correlation by 0.246 over WER/CER on 32 hours of real human speech.