SpeechLLMs process spoken language directly from audio, but accent and vocal identity cues can lead to biased behaviour. Current bias evaluations often miss how such bias manifests in end-to-end speech interactions and how users experience it. We distinguish quality-of-service disparities (e.g., off-topic or low-effort responses) from content-level bias in coherent outputs, and examine intersectional effects of accent and perceived gender. In this work, we explore a two-part evaluation approach: (1) a controlled test cohort spanning six accents and two gender presentations, analysed with judge-free prompt-response metrics, and (2) an interactive study design using voice conversion to let users experience identical content through different vocal identities. Across two studies (Interactive, N=24; Observational, N=19), we find that voice conversion increases trust and acceptability for benign responses and encourages perspective-taking, while automated analysis in search of quality-of-service disparities, reveals {accent x gender} disparities in alignment and verbosity across SpeechLLMs. These results highlight voice conversion for probing and experiencing intersectional voice bias while our evaluation suite provides richer bias evaluations for spoken conversational AI.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Study design – Observational Study (OS) and Interactive Study (IS) – illustrating three positions from which participants evaluate AI system behaviour. Participants either observe another user’s interaction with the system (OS), interact directly using their own voice (IS–O), or vicariously experience an interaction as if they were another speaker via voice conversion (IS–Vicarious). A diagram divided into three sections illustrating different study conditions. The left section, labeled 'Observational Study (OS, 3rd Person)', depicts a participant watching another person speak to a robot, representing observing another person's interaction. The middle section, labeled 'Interactive Study (IS, 1st Person) - IS-O', depicts a participant speaking directly to a robot, representing interacting through one's own voice. The right section, labeled 'Interactive Study (IS, 1st Person) - IS-VC', depicts a participant speaking to a robot while holding a mask of a different face, representing vicariously experiencing an interaction as another speaker via voice conversion.
Figure 2. The same inputs are treated differently by the SpeechLLM depending on accent x gender voice profile, in terms of (a) semantic alignment and (b) response verbosity : Qwen3-Omni is the most stable, while LFMAudio2-1.5B shows the largest variability.
Figure 3. Comparison of Harm, Acceptability, and Trust ratings across conditions for the Benign and Potentially Concerning AI responses. OS = Observational Study (reference); IS-O = Interactive Study with original voice; IS-VC = Interactive Study with voice conversion. β = fixed effect coefficient from linear mixed-effects models with participant as random intercept. Cell colours indicate the magnitude and direction of the difference relative to the OS baseline for each measure: green denotes an increase, red denotes a decrease, and grey indicates the reference condition.
ID
Participant Observations on Potentially Concerning AI Response Quality and Bias
AI Response Quality
P17
“[U]sers’ question was reasonably intelligible, even if the AI had difficulty understanding it, it should have probed more deeply, rather than just a ‘say it again in English’ which to someone with an overseas accent can easily be misinterpreted.”
P13
“Seemed very rude that it was asking the user to repeat in English – it could have tried reply what it thought it heard and ask for clarification.”
P12
“AI’s response was way below the standards expected, in fact it bordered on the offensive. The User’s prompt was hardly unintelligible yet the AI made no attempt to begin to understand it.”
P23
“The caller was very clear. I had no problem understanding so for AI to not even recognise the language is extremely insulting, not to mention potential[ly] dangerous if problems cannot be reported”
P30
“…the AI responded with odd information about the application process asking the user to give information about their new address (which they don’t have) and a utility bill at the new address again which they wouldn’t have. This response was not helpful for user at all.”
Table 1. Participant observations on Potentially Concerning responses, pertaining to AI quality and bias.
Speech Large Language Models (SpeechLLMs) process spoken input directly, retaining cues such as accent and perceived gender that were previously removed in cascaded pipelines. This introduces speaker identity dependent variation in responses. We present a large-scale intersectional evaluation of accent and gender bias in three SpeechLLMs using 2,880 controlled interactions across six English accents and two gender presentations, keeping linguistic content constant through voice cloning. Using pointwise LLM-judge ratings, pairwise comparisons, and Best-Worst Scaling with human validation, we detect recurring directional disparities. Eastern European-accented speech receives lower helpfulness scores, particularly for female-presenting voices. Responses remain polite but differ in helpfulness. While LLM judges capture the directional trend of these biases, human evaluators exhibit significantly higher sensitivity, showing stronger accent-level contrasts.
Shree Harsha Bokkahalli Satish, Christoph Minixhofer, Maria Teleki +5
Department of Speech, Music and Hearing, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden · Centre for Speech Technology Research, University of Edinburgh, UK · Texas A&M University, USA
We introduce HEAR (Human-recorded Evaluation of Audio-LLM bias by Real speakers), a large-scale, ecologically valid benchmark comprising 87k real human audio samples from 843 demographically diverse participants. HEAR enables comprehensive evaluation through Multiple Choice Question Answering (MCQA) and open-ended long-form tasks. To our knowledge, this is the first large-scale voice benchmark grounded entirely in authentic human speech. We evaluate model behavior across both real-time speech-to-speech and speech-to-text architectures. Our results reveal that voice-conditioned bias is a model-specific property. Furthermore, we demonstrate that personalization instructions consistently exacerbate demographic disparities. Our findings establish that voice bias is a controllable model characteristic, providing a foundational framework for future bias mitigation and evaluation in Audio-LLM development.
Hundreds of millions of people rely on large language models (LLMs) for education, work, and even healthcare. Yet these models are known to reproduce and amplify social biases present in their training data. Moreover, text-based interfaces remain a barrier for many, for example, users with limited literacy, motor impairments, or mobile-only devices. Voice interaction promises to expand accessibility, but unlike text, speech carries identity cues that users cannot easily mask, raising concerns about whether accessibility gains may come at the cost of equitable treatment. Here we show that audio-enabled LLMs exhibit systematic gender discrimination, shifting responses toward gender-stereotyped adjectives and occupations solely on the basis of speaker voice, and amplifying bias beyond that observed in text-based interaction. Thus, voice interfaces do not merely extend text models to a new modality but introduce distinct bias mechanisms tied to paralinguistic cues. Complementary survey evidence (n=1,000) shows that infrequent chatbot users are most hesitant to undisclosed attribute inference and most likely to disengage when such practices are revealed. To demonstrate a potential mitigation strategy, we show that pitch manipulation can systematically regulate gender-discriminatory outputs. Overall, our findings reveal a critical tension in AI development: efforts to expand accessibility through voice interfaces simultaneously create new pathways for discrimination, demanding that fairness and accessibility be addressed in tandem.
Carolin Holtermann, Minh Duc Bui, Kaitlyn Zhou +3
Trustworthy AI Lab, University of Hamburg · NALA Group, JGU Mainz · Cornell University +3