Modern voice-agent systems rely on streaming speech recognition models that operate under stringent latency constraints. This study shows that, due to the limited memory constraints of real-time processing, these systems are adversely impacted by conversational phenomena such as long silences and backchannels. While many agentic pipelines mitigate this by resetting state at each turn, this approach discards vital context and impairs performance at turn onsets. We propose two state-management strategies that preserve cross-utterance context to reduce onset errors. In experiments with two state-of-the-art streaming models on two spoken dialogue benchmarks, our best method yields an average of 15-21% relative WER reduction at utterance onsets.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Stateful inference. Cached acoustic memory state for streaming ASR models under the different state-management strategies defined in Section 3.3 .
Figure 2: Word Error Rates for different state-management strategies with fastconformer-114m on Switchboard.
Model
Category
CallHome
Switchboard
fs
cs
sc
rb
fs
cs
sc
rb
fastconformer-114m
Overall
15.43
15.18
14.02
13.83
11.97
12.36
10.26
10.20
First Word
48.10
41.40
36.24
35.03
51.44
44.32
35.92
34.78
After Long Pause
17.17
20.66
16.15
15.70
14.73
20.06
13.08
12.99
After Short Turn
18.52
20.20
17.17
16.61
13.93
15.94
12.03
11.94
nemotron-streaming-0.6b
Overall
13.82
14.29
13.86
13.52
10.90
11.40
10.85
10.62
Table 1: Detailed WER (%) analysis. First Word refers to the WER of the initial word in a turn; “Long Pause” denotes silences exceeding the acoustic memory length of 5.6 s; “Short Turn” denotes turns shorter than 3 words.
Figure 3: Comparison of SC and RB for Switchboard.
fastconformer-114m
nemotron-streaming-0.6b
Shape
Memory
Shape
Memory
Encoder State
Attention KV Cache
(17,1,70,512)
2.32 MB
(24,1,70,1024)
6.56 MB
Convolution Cache
(17,1,512,8)
0.27 MB
(24,1,1024,8)
0.75 MB
Valid Cache Length
(1,)
8 B
(1,)
8 B
Decoder State
LSTM Recurrent State
(3,640)
7.5 KB
(10,640)
25 KB
Last Token
scalar
8 B
scalar
8 B
Table 2: Model state components with the corresponding tensor shapes and memory footprint.
Dataset
Model
Δ % (FS → RB)
MAPSSWE
Wilcoxon
Switchboard
nemotron-streaming-0.6b
2.47
∗∗
∗∗
fastconformer-114m
14.36
∗∗
∗∗
CallHome
nemotron-streaming-0.6b
2.17
∗
∗∗
fastconformer-114m
9.91
∗∗
∗∗
Table 3: Relative WER reduction (%) from FS to RB; statistical significance is assessed using the MAPSSWE and per-utterance Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. ∗ indicates p<0.05 and ∗∗ indicates p<0.001 .
Model
Dataset
SC
RB ( k=1 )
RB ( k=5 )
RB ( k=10 )
fastconformer-114m
CallHome (val)
13.94
13.82
13.70
13.74
Switchboard (val)
9.95
9.90
9.87
9.91
CallHome (test)
14.02
13.92
13.83
13.90
Switchboard (test)
10.26
10.21
10.20
10.25
nemotron-streaming-0.6b
CallHome (val)
13.83
13.75
13.66
13.57
Switchboard (val)
10.37
10.30
10.05
10.02
Table 4: Comparison of overall WER (%) across different token thresholds for RB.
Model
Latency
CallHome
Switchboard
fs
cs
sc
rb
fs
cs
sc
rb
fastconformer-114m
80 ms
15.52
15.64
14.47
14.19
12.21
12.81
10.57
10.49
160 ms
15.43
15.18
14.02
13.83
11.97
12.36
10.26
10.20
240 ms
15.45
15.37
14.06
13.98
12.04
12.66
10.28
10.27
560 ms
14.75
15.04
13.49
13.44
11.44
12.06
10.04
10.04
nemotron-streaming-0.6b
80 ms
14.51
14.86
14.35
14.16
11.44
11.88
11.5
11.17
Table 5: Comparison of overall WER (%) across different state-management strategies and latency settings.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Category
FS
CS
SC
RB
fastconformer-114m
Overall
14.71
15.98
13.84
13.59
First Word
49.15
45.92
35.05
32.50
After Long Pause
18.17
23.33
17.13
16.97
After Short Turn
16.61
19.41
15.63
15.39
nemotron-streaming-0.6b
Overall
14.79
15.74
14.66
14.28
First Word
33.15
37.72
32.95
30.72
Appendix
Table 6: Performance comparison of different state-management strategies on Switchboard with 160 ms latency when turn boundaries are derived from Silero-VAD. Metric definitions are identical to those used in Table 1 .
Streaming automatic speech recognition (ASR) for real-time voice agents and full-duplex dialogue must provide accurate partial transcripts with low commit latency. Existing systems commonly use a fixed chunk size, look-ahead, or target delay, or encourage emissions near estimated acoustic boundaries. These approaches do not directly optimize how much additional context to use at each output position under a single-pass, hard-commit constraint. We propose X2Streaming-ASR, which decomposes streaming recognition into when to commit and what to commit. Its three-stage training procedure first establishes streaming recognition ability, then warm-starts the commit policy with automatically probed trajectories, and finally refines the policy using character-level, segment-assigned group-relative rewards for recognition accuracy and latency. Across ten Chinese and English test sets, X2Streaming-ASR attains the lowest mean commit latency relative to forced-aligned endpoints, 32--109ms on Chinese characters and 12--85ms on English words, while recognition accuracy remains comparable to existing systems.
Voice AI applications are gaining popularity as advances in large language models (LLMs) enable more natural and accessible spoken interactions. Serving these applications requires accounting not only for what users say, but also for how they speak (e.g., speaking rate) and the conditions under which their audio is captured and transmitted (e.g., background noise and packet loss). However, existing LLM systems represent conversation context as a flat, growing sequence of messages, leaving voice-specific context implicit in the audio. As a result, they can generate responses that are poorly aligned with user preferences, degrade interaction quality under adverse environmental conditions, and incur high costs over long voice sessions. We present llmovoice, a context-management middleware that explicitly models voice context and orchestrates its use. At each turn, llmovoice constructs a bounded voice context from the current user input, relevant interaction history, and explicit paralinguistic and environmental states. It then uses the serving LLM to reason over this context and generate runtime directives that guide how the system responds. We evaluate llmovoice on real-world voice applications and benchmarks. It reduces speaking-rate alignment error by 52.4%, lowers the false-interruption rate from 46.0% to 0.9% under packet loss, and reduces model usage cost by 79.2%. For long sessions, llmovoice reduces per-turn cost by up to 24.9 times while retaining up to 98.7% of baseline answer quality.
Linyi Jiang, Silvery D. Fu, Yifei Zhu
Global College, Shanghai Jiao Tong University · AgenticSys
Agentic speech systems must exchange more than text, including speaker identity, timing, phonetic information, and behavioral annotations. Yet these signals are often produced in incompatible tool-specific formats, making agent-to-agent handoff fragile. We present OneVoice, a lightweight, JSON-native intermediate representation that provides a shared semantic structure for speech pipelines. OneVoice organizes heterogeneous speech evidence into validated session records with stable identifiers, layered transcripts, explicit timing relationships, and provenance information. We evaluate OneVoice in two complementary multi-agent workflows covering event aggregation and acoustic-phonetic temporal linking across three language models. Compared with implicit agent-defined handoffs, OneVoice substantially improves aggregation reliability and the preservation of temporal relationships, demonstrating the value of an explicit speech-specific representation for agent communication.
Vipul Charugundla, Dancheng Liu, Jinjun Xiong
University at Buffalo · University of Texas at San Antonio