cs.CLApr 23, 2026

Do LLM Decoders Listen Fairly? Benchmarking How Language Model Priors Shape Bias in Speech Recognition

Authors: Srishti GinjalaEric Fosler-LussierChristopher W. MyersSrinivasan Parthasarathy

Organizations: The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA · Air Force Research Laboratory, USA

Abstract

As pretrained large language models replace task-specific decoders in speech recognition, a critical question arises: do their text-derived priors make recognition fairer or more biased across demographic groups? We evaluate nine models spanning three architectural generations (CTC with no language model, encoder-decoder with an implicit LM, and LLM-based with an explicit pretrained decoder) on about 43,000 utterances across five demographic axes (ethnicity, accent, gender, age, first language) using Common Voice 24 and Meta's Fair-Speech, a controlled-prompt dataset that eliminates vocabulary confounds. On clean audio, three findings challenge assumptions: LLM decoders do not amplify racial bias (Granite-8B has the best ethnicity fairness, max/min WER = 2.28); Whisper exhibits pathological hallucination on Indian-accented speech with a non-monotonic insertion-rate spike to 9.62% at large-v3; and audio compression predicts accent fairness more than LLM scale. We then stress-test these findings under 12 acoustic degradation conditions (noise, reverberation, silence injection, chunk masking) across both datasets, totaling 216 inference runs. Severe degradation paradoxically compresses fairness gaps as all groups converge to high WER, but silence injection amplifies Whisper's accent bias up to 4.64x by triggering demographic-selective hallucination. Under masking, Whisper enters catastrophic repetition loops (86% of 51,797 insertions) while explicit-LLM decoders produce 38x fewer insertions with near-zero repetition; high-compression audio encoding (Q-former) reintroduces repetition pathology even in LLM decoders. These results suggest that audio encoder design, not LLM scaling, is the primary lever for equitable and robust speech recognition.

Explore similar work

Sep 23, 2026cs.SD

When Entanglement Lower-Bounds Disparity: Auditing and Repairing Demographic Fairness in Audio Understanding Models

Speech technology penalizes some voices: recognition errs nearly twice as often for Black speakers, and accuracy declines for second-language accents and older speakers. We introduce TRIAD, an audit grid crossing 120 texts, 24 rendered demographic voice profiles (gender, age band, accent), and ten expressive styles via controllable text-to-speech, isolating perceived demographic attributes from content and affect. For ten open-weights encoders we define axis-fidelity functionals, principal-angle leakage between axis subspaces, and group-conditional gaps; a proposition proves that average probe disparity grows with the same aggregate voice-semantic leakage ΛΛ we measure, and a corollary shows that peak leakage forces worst-case disparity inside an active region. The measured mean-square probe disparity tracks ΛΛ (Pearson r = 0.93), and a black-box protocol exposes the same signature in two closed-source models. ORCA, an adapter combining axis-specific contrastive heads, an orthogonality penalty, and group-balanced sampling, cuts leakage 72% and roughly halves the gaps.
Kian Shamsaie, Iman Modarressi
Aug 6, 2026cs.CL

How to Recognize New Words: A Comparison Between Context Biasing Methods and Speech LLMs

Recognizing new and rare words - named entities, acronyms, domain specific special words, and other items scarce in training data - remains a key challenge for automatic speech recognition (ASR). We compare two strategies for this: context biasing methods, where an ASR model is extended such that during inference a word list can be supplied, and speech large language models (LLMs) prompted with context directly. We evaluate two context biasing methods based on Whisper against three speech LLMs across read and non-read speech, reporting biased, unbiased, and overall word error rate (WER). The context biasing methods cut biased WER by up to 88% relative while leaving other words largely unaffected. Speech LLMs excel on read speech but generalize less well to non-read speech, and prove sensitive to distractor count and prompt word order. We characterize the resulting trade-offs to guide method selection.
Christian Huber, Alexander Waibel
Apr 19, 2026eess.AS

VIBE: Voice-Induced open-ended Bias Evaluation for Large Audio-Language Models via Real-World Speech

Large Audio-Language Models (LALMs) are increasingly integrated into daily applications, yet their generative biases remain underexplored. Existing speech fairness benchmarks rely on synthetic speech and Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs), both offering a fragmented view of fairness. We propose VIBE, a framework that evaluates generative bias through open-ended tasks such as personalized recommendations, using human-recorded speech. Unlike MCQs, our method allows stereotypical associations to manifest organically without predefined options, making it easily extensible to new tasks. Evaluating 12 state-of-the-art LALMs reveals systematic biases in realistic scenarios. Both gender and accent cues trigger statistically significant distributional shifts, and bias magnitude is strongly task-dependent.
Yi-Cheng Lin, Yusuke Hirota, Sung-Feng Huang +1