Revisiting the Relation Between Language Model Perplexity and ASR Word Error Rate for Modern End-to-End Speech Recognition
Authors: Mohammad Zeineldeen, Albert Zeyer, Haoran Zhang, Robin Schmitt, Ralf Schlüter, Hermann Ney
Organizations: AppTek.ai GmbH, Aachen, Germany · Machine Learning and Human Language Technology Group, Faculty of Computer Science, RWTH Aachen University Aachen, Germany
Language model (LM) perplexity (PPL) has historically been used as a proxy for automatic speech recognition (ASR) word error rate (WER), with prior work reporting an approximately linear relation in log-log space. Modern end-to-end ASR systems challenge this assumption because they already contain internal language modeling capacity, are often evaluated without external language models, and can now be combined with neural LMs and large language models (LLMs) through different recognition strategies. This paper revisits the relation between PPL and WER for modern ASR systems. We study whether external LMs still improve current end-to-end ASR systems, whether the PPL-WER relation remains linear in log-log space, how encoder context length affects this relation, and how LLM perplexities fit into the trend observed for standard neural LMs. We further investigate internal language modeling (ILM) in attention-based encoder-decoder systems and show that ILM subtraction changes the observed PPL-WER relation, indicating that the decoder's internal LM must be considered when interpreting the effect of external LM quality.
Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) is traditionally evaluated using Word Error Rate (WER), a metric that is insensitive to meaning. Embedding-based semantic metrics are better correlated with human perception, but decoder-based Large Language Models (LLMs) remain underexplored for this task. This paper evaluates their relevance through three approaches: (1) selecting the best hypothesis between two candidates, (2) computing semantic distance using generative embeddings, and (3) qualitative classification of errors. On the HATS dataset, the best LLMs achieve 92--94% agreement with human annotators for hypothesis selection, compared to 63% for WER, also outperforming semantic metrics. Embeddings from decoder-based LLMs show performance comparable to encoder models. Finally, LLMs offer a promising direction for interpretable and semantic ASR evaluation.
Advances in deep learning and end-to-end Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) have enabled robust multilingual models, but evaluation metrics remain limited in assessing accuracy. Efforts to improve or replace the common metric Word Error Rate (WER) often focus on English, leaving evaluations for low-resource languages under-explored and hindering fair cross-lingual comparisons. We present OpenWER, an open-source implementation that improves WER robustness through language-specific normalisation and compound word detection. A token-based Levenshtein alignment preserves complementary metrics and allows metadata embedding for granular accuracy scores. Our analysis of 52 languages shows absolute WER reductions of up to 25% compared to common libraries. OpenWER contributes to fairness in ASR research by increasing the reliability of WER across diverse languages and enabling more comprehensive accuracy evaluations.
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.