As automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems shift toward multilingual support and low-resource language modeling, phoneme-based layers serve as a critical language-agnostic foundation. However, most evaluations of ASR's demographic biases related to race, age, gender, and accent focus on standard grapheme-based ASR systems with comparatively little emphasis on phoneme-based systems. In this study, we evaluate the performance of WhisperIPA and ZIPA, two state-of-the-art open-source systems that generate International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) transcriptions. Our evaluation includes existing multilingual speech corpora and demographically annotated English-language corpora, comparing model-generated IPA transcriptions against grapheme-to-phoneme (G2P) systems using both standard phoneme error rate (PER) and a proposed Soft PER metric that tolerates linguistically similar phoneme substitutions. Our analysis examines how performance varies across language, gender, accent, ethnicity, and age, revealing persistent disparities even after accounting for acceptable phonemic variation. These findings, while limited, provide insight into potential sources of bias and inform the development of more inclusive and linguistically robust phoneme-based ASR systems. Our code and data are publicly available.
Modern automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems have been observed to function better for certain speaker groups (SGs) than others, despite recent gains in overall performance. One potential impediment to progress towards fairer ASR is a more nuanced understanding of the types of modeling errors that speech encoder models make, and in particular the difference between the structure of embeddings for high-performance and low-performance SGs. This paper proposes a framework typifying two types of error that can occur in modeling phonemes in ASR systems: random error/high variance in phoneme embedding, vs systematic error/embedding bias. We find that training phoneme classification probes only on a single, typically disadvantaged SG, sometimes improves performance for that SG, which is evidence for the existence of SG-level bias in phoneme embeddings. On the other hand, we find that speakers and SGs with higher levels of phoneme variance are the same as those with worse phoneme prediction accuracy. We conclude that both types of error are present in phoneme embeddings and both are candidate causes for SG-level unfairness in ASR, though random error is likely a greater hindrance to fairness than systematic error. Furthermore, we find that finetuning encoder models using a fairness-enhancing algorithm (domain enhancing and adversarial training) changes neither the benefits of in-domain phoneme classification probe training, nor measured levels of random embedding error.
Felix Herron, Solange Rossato, Alexandre Allauzen +1
Evaluation benchmarks for Indian language automatic speech recognition (ASR) suffer from two systematic biases: optimistic scores from clean, controlled audio conditions, and pessimistic scores from overly rigid transcription standards that penalize valid linguistic variations. We introduce Vimarsha, a 100-hour benchmark spanning all 22 scheduled Indian languages, designed to address both distortions. Vimarsha combines demographically diverse on-field recordings with carefully mined in-the-wild audio selected for acoustic difficulty, alongside a lattice of variations framework that encodes multiple valid transcriptions per utterance. Evaluations of 10 state-of-the-art ASR models reveal substantial shifts in model rankings under realistic conditions, geographic and demographic performance disparities, and systematic failure modes across speaking rates and acoustic environments.
Many studies have shown automatic speech processing (ASR) systems have unequal performance across speakergroups (SG's). However, the manner in which such studies arrive at this conclusion is inconsistent. To pave the wayfor more reliable results in future studies, we lay out best practices for benchmarking ASR fairness based on literaturefrom machine learning fairness, social sciences, and speech science. We first describe the importance of preciselythe fairness hypothesis being interrogated, and tailoring fairness metrics to apply specifically to said hypothesis.We then examine several benchmarks used to rate ASR systems on fairness and discuss how their results can bemisconstrued without assiduous oversight into the intersections between SG's. We find that evaluating fairnessbased on single heterogeneous SG's, such as they are defined in fairness benchmarks, can lead to misidentifyingwhich SG's are actually being mistreated by ASR systems. We advocate for as fine-grained an analysis as possibleof the intersectionality of as many demographic variables as are available in the metadata of fairness corpora in orderto tease out such spurious correlations