Speech-based applications pass spoken queries through automatic speech recognition (ASR) before any retrieval module, so ASR errors enter the pipeline as a fixed upstream constraint. We empirically test whether two extensions to standard retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), entity-graph linking and iterative reformulation, absorb or amplify these errors. Using four English accents synthesized through neural TTS, we evaluate four RAG configurations on three multi-hop QA benchmarks (HotpotQA, 2WikiMultiHopQA and MuSiQue) against a clean-text oracle. Although the structurally richer configurations generally retain higher absolute F1 under ASR input, both extensions amplify the error: the F1 gap from clean text to the highest-WER accent is 36-67% larger under their combination than under naive dense retrieval, on all three benchmarks. The dominant failure mode is corruption of one or more query entities, accounting for 87-96% of degradation cases on 2WikiMultiHopQA across all four methods. Two lightweight surface-form mitigations leave most of the gap intact, indicating that downstream retrieval structure amplifies remaining entity errors. We release code and data at https://github.com/Continuum-AI-Corp/spoken-multihop-rag .
Figures & tables
Figure 1: HotpotQA F1 under oracle (clean text), US-accented (WER 9.4%), and Nigerian-accented (WER 14.5%) speech. The oracle–NG gap grows from 0.104 for the simplest baseline (Naive RAG) to 0.142 for the most structurally complex configuration (IRCoT+HippoRAG2).
Figure 2: Overview of our spoken multi-hop QA evaluation pipeline. Each text question is synthesized in US, Indian, Filipino, and Nigerian accents through neural TTS, then transcribed by Whisper-large-v3. The mitigation stage denotes three separately evaluated experimental conditions (no mitigation, N-best decoding, or phonetic entity correction) rather than a runtime branch. Each transcription is then processed by one of the four RAG methods. The oracle condition (brown dashed arc) bypasses the speech pipeline and feeds the original text directly to retrieval, providing a clean-text upper bound.
Dataset
Method
Oracle
US
IN
PH
NG
Gap
WER
—
9.4%
11.0%
10.6%
14.5%
—
HotpotQA
Naive RAG
0.617
0.574
0.558
0.561
0.513
0.104
IRCoT+Naive
0.638
0.594
0.573
0.583
0.523
0.115
HippoRAG2
0.711
0.670
0.645
0.652
0.595
0.116
IRCoT+HippoRAG2
0.730
0.688
0.652
0.671
0.588
0.142
WER
—
13.6%
14.1%
13.8%
17.1%
—
Table 1: F1 across three multi-hop QA datasets under oracle (clean text), US-accented, Indian-accented (IN), Filipino-accented (PH), and Nigerian-accented (NG) speech. WER per accent is reported per dataset. Gap (shaded) is the oracle–Nigerian F1 difference. Bold marks the largest gap per dataset; underline marks IRCoT+Naive to isolate the contribution of iterative reformulation. All oracle–Nigerian gaps are significant at p<0.001 .
Figure 3: Per-question degradation rate on 2WikiMultiHopQA under Nigerian-accented speech, stratified by Whisper WER. The gap between Naive RAG and IRCoT+HippoRAG2 reaches 12.6% at ≥20% WER.
Figure 4: F1 of Naive RAG and HippoRAG2 across IRCoT steps on 1,000 HotpotQA questions. Solid lines show oracle F1, dashed lines show Nigerian-accented (NG) F1, and shaded regions show the oracle–NG gap.
Error type
US
IN
PH
NG
Entity corruption
90%
87%
91%
94%
Severe garbling
30%
35%
37%
40%
Number/date corrupt.
4%
4%
4%
4%
Function-word noise
1%
0%
0%
0%
Other content change
7%
7%
5%
3%
# degradation cases
113
124
116
174
Table 2: Distribution of error types within degradation cases on 2WikiMultiHopQA under Naive RAG. Cases can carry multiple labels.
Figure 5: Case study on 2WikiMultiHopQA illustrating how a single entity corruption ( Hanuman Patal Vijay ) affects all four RAG methods. Cell values are F1 scores.
N-best
Phonetic
Method
F1
Rec.
F1
Rec.
Naive RAG
0.328
−2.2%
0.337
+4.4%
HippoRAG2
0.425
+2.5%
0.439
+11.1%
IRCoT+Naive
0.337
−1.1%
0.347
+4.5%
IRCoT+HippoRAG2
0.448
−1.0%
0.464
+7.2%
Table 3: Mitigation results on 2WikiMultiHopQA NG (vs. Table 1 baselines). Recovery is the fraction of the Oracle–NG gap closed by each mitigation.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Category
Words
Articles (3)
a, an, the
Prepositions (13)
of, in, on, at, to, for, with, by,
from, as, into, about, between
Forms of be (7)
is, was, are, were, be, been, being
Other auxiliaries (6)
have, has, had, do, does, did
Modals (8)
will, would, shall, should,
Appendix
Table 4: Function-word list used for ASR error categorization. Matching is case-insensitive after stripping non-alphanumeric characters.
Dataset
Method
Oracle
US
IN
PH
NG
Gap
WER
—
9.4%
11.0%
10.6%
14.5%
—
HotpotQA
Naive RAG
0.488
0.456
0.439
0.446
0.403
0.085
IRCoT+Naive
0.508
0.476
0.453
0.469
0.417
0.091
HippoRAG2
0.568
0.534
0.514
0.519
0.473
0.095
IRCoT+HippoRAG2
0.588
0.546
0.519
0.534
0.463
0.125
WER
—
13.6%
14.1%
13.8%
17.1%
—
Appendix
Table 5: Exact Match (EM) across three multi-hop QA datasets under oracle and four English accents. All settings follow the convention in Table 1 .
Error type
US
IN
PH
NG
Entity corruption
67%
70%
75%
82%
Severe garbling
14%
24%
24%
44%
Number/date corrupt.
5%
5%
5%
4%
Function-word noise
4%
9%
8%
7%
Other content change
21%
13%
11%
7%
# degradation cases
81
103
88
136
Appendix
Table 6: Distribution of error types within degradation cases on HotpotQA under Naive RAG. Cases can carry multiple labels.
Error type
US
IN
PH
NG
Entity corruption
59%
78%
66%
68%
Severe garbling
4%
7%
14%
21%
Number/date corrupt.
0%
0%
0%
1%
Function-word noise
9%
4%
2%
1%
Other content change
28%
13%
20%
23%
# degradation cases
46
54
50
71
Appendix
Table 7: Distribution of error types within degradation cases on MuSiQue under Naive RAG. Cases can carry multiple labels.
Dataset
Method
US
IN
PH
NG
HotpotQA
Naive RAG
67% (81)
70% (103)
75% (88)
82% (136)
IRCoT+Naive
77% (81)
77% (107)
73% (100)
79% (154)
HippoRAG2
73% (71)
77% (96)
81% (90)
82% (154)
IRCoT+HippoRAG2
67% (75)
78% (110)
69% (99)
80% (177)
2WikiMultiHopQA
Naive RAG
90% (113)
87% (124)
91% (116)
94% (174)
IRCoT+Naive
95% (140)
92% (132)
92% (132)
94% (206)
Appendix
Table 8: Entity-corruption rate within degradation cases for each RAG method and accent, with the number of degradation cases in parentheses. Cases can carry multiple labels.
Whisper
SeamlessM4T
Method
F1
Gap
F1
Gap
Naive RAG
0.331
0.137
0.333
0.135
IRCoT+Naive
0.339
0.177
0.334
0.182
HippoRAG2
0.421
0.162
0.421
0.162
IRCoT+HippoRAG2
0.450
0.195
0.431
0.214
Appendix
Table 9: End-to-end F1 and oracle–ASR gap on 2WikiMultiHopQA NG under Whisper-large-v3 (WER 17.1%) and SeamlessM4T-v2-large (WER 28.0%). Per-method oracle F1 is reported in Table 1 . The gap ordering across methods is preserved under both ASR systems.
Speech recognition in real time in far-field conversational settings still incurs significant errors. Identifying potential error spans during streaming ASR permits a recourse mechanism where the speaker can be asked to repeat the affected content under cleaner acoustic conditions. We propose PARDON, a new framework for online error localization, that identifies spans likely to benefit from this intervention. Our supervision uses clean audio to estimate how the recognizer's output might change under improved acoustic conditions. We probabilistically align noisy and clean decodes using a pair-HMM to obtain soft supervision. These soft targets train a counterfactual gain scorer by combining a suite of acoustic and language features to produce token-level scores, that are further grouped into spans for targeted recourse. An LLM uses the ASR transcript of the repetition to revise only the selected span. At a precision of 70%, PARDON achieves the highest recall by identifying up to 52% more erroneous tokens compared to the strongest baseline. Targeted repetition yields relative WER reductions of up to 24% under a budget that accounts for both interruption frequency and the lengths of re-uttered spans.
We analyze how automatic speech recognition (ASR) errors propagate through ASR-LLM cascades in Korean spoken question answering (SQA), focusing on downstream semantic failures that conventional ASR metrics cannot fully capture. Our analysis shows that the relative downstream degradation caused by ASR errors is consistent across LLMs with different absolute performance, suggesting that cascade degradation largely tracks ASR-stage information loss. We further identify single-character Korean ASR errors as a Korean-specific loss channel, where even a minimal transcription difference can change the intended question and degrade downstream QA performance. Finally, an auxiliary comparison shows that a large audio language model outperforms an ASR-LLM cascade with an approximately matched language backbone in noisy Korean SQA, indicating the potential of direct audio input to mitigate transcript-induced information loss.
Donghyuk Jung, Youngwon Choi
Korea Culture Technology Institute, Republic of Korea · Maum AI Inc., Republic of Korea
Retrieval-augmented multi-hop question answering (QA) decomposes a query into sub-questions and decomposes the corpus into smaller retrieval units such as sentences. Both forms of decomposition improve the pipeline, but we show that both share the same vulnerability, the loss of entity information, and that this loss breaks the pipeline at two separate points. The first point is retrieval, where a sub-question loses the entity resolved at the previous hop, leaving the retriever with nothing to match against. The second point is harder to see, because retrieval still appears to succeed. Once a passage is split into sentences, an isolated sentence loses the context that grounds its pronouns, so even with the correct sentence in hand the LLM cannot tell which entity the sentence is about. We isolate this second point as a distinct failure mode that we call lost-in-generation, and a retrieval-controlled experiment shows that it degrades answers even when the gold evidence is fixed in the context. We then propose Dual Entity Recovery RAG (DER-RAG), which keeps the grounding entity explicit from retrieval through to generation with two lightweight components, a two-way query decomposition that carries the resolved entity across sub-questions and a subject entity prefix attached to each sentence at generation time. DER-RAG needs no graph construction, no corpus modification, and no fine-tuning, yet on three multi-hop QA benchmarks it matches or exceeds strong baselines, including graph-based methods that depend on costly offline structures.