Large Audio Language Models (LALMs) have seen increasing use for audio understanding tasks such as speech recognition and audio question answering, raising concerns about fairness across demographic subgroups. Fairness evaluation in spoken-input settings is challenging due to confounding factors, including semantic variation in spoken content and speaker-specific characteristics. Ignoring these factors can result in misleading conclusions about model bias. We propose a semantic-aware mixed-effects regression framework for fairness evaluation in LALMs that explicitly accounts for these confounders. Our approach incorporates sentence-level semantic embeddings of reference text as covariates and models speaker identity as a random effect. Notably, semantic representations are extracted from the same LALM under evaluation, enabling semantic control over variation as perceived by the model itself. Experiments on simulated data and real-world benchmarks demonstrate that the proposed approach substantially reduces spurious fairness findings and yields more robust and interpretable estimates of subgroup performance differences.
Figures & tables
Simulated Data
Male-Female Score Comparison
Method
Ratio
Confidence Interval
Is False Positive?
Vanilla Estimation
1.124
(1.103, 1.144)
Y
Regression w/o Semantics
1.124
(1.104, 1.144)
Y
Semantic-Aware: Embed-AGG
1.003
(0.983, 1.024)
N
Semantic-Aware: Embed-EOWL
1.000
(0.980, 1.021)
N
TABLE I: Comparison of vanilla and semantic-aware methods for gender fairness evaluation on simulated data.
Fig. 1: PCA visualization of sentence embeddings.
Aggregated WER or Score
Male
Female
Ratio
LibriSpeech Test-Clean (WER)
3.21
4.47
0.719
LibriSpeech Test-Other (WER)
6.89
5.93
1.162
AIR-Bench-Chat (Score)
6.02
6.21
0.969
TABLE II: Aggregated male and female performance comparison across evaluation datasets.
LibriSpeech Test-Clean
Male-Female WER Comparison
Method
Ratio
Confidence Interval
Is Stat. Significant?
Vanilla Estimation
0.719
(0.553, 0.938)
Y
Regression w/o Spk. w/o Sem.
0.719
(0.658, 0.786)
Y
Regression w/ Spk. w/o Sem.
0.777
(0.600, 1.011)
N
Spk. Sem.-Aware: Embed-AGG
0.802
(0.619, 1.042)
N
TABLE III: Comparison of different methods for gender fairness evaluation on LibriSpeech Test-Clean data.
LibriSpeech Test-Other
Male-Female WER Comparison
Method
Ratio
Confidence Interval
Is Stat. Significant?
Vanilla Estimation
1.162
(1.013, 1.329)
Y
Regression w/o Spk. w/o Sem.
1.162
(1.088, 1.244)
Y
Regression w/ Spk. w/o Sem.
1.125
(0.875, 1.450)
N
Spk. Sem.-Aware: Embed-AGG
1.020
(0.811, 1.289)
N
TABLE IV: Comparison of different methods for gender fairness evaluation on LibriSpeech Test-Other data.
AIR-Bench-Chat
Male-Female Score Comparison
Method
Ratio
Confidence Interval
Is Stat. Significant?
Vanilla Estimation
0.969
(0.893, 1.055)
N
Regression w/o Semantics
0.969
(0.891, 1.055)
N
Semantic-Aware: Embed-AGG
1.004
(0.920, 1.101)
N
Semantic-Aware: Embed-EOWL
1.002
(0.924, 1.093)
N
TABLE V: Comparison of different methods for gender fairness evaluation on AIR-Bench-Chat data.
Graduate Institute of Communication Engineering National Taiwan University Taipei, Taiwan · NVIDIA Research NVIDIA Taipei, Taiwan · AI Center of Research Excellence National Taiwan University Taipei, Taiwan