When Entanglement Lower-Bounds Disparity: Auditing and Repairing Demographic Fairness in Audio Understanding Models

Automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems exhibit unequal error rates across speaker groups, motivating interventions on their internal representations. We ask whether speaker-linked attributes that are linearly readable from pretrained ASR encoders yield useful directions for reducing group word-error-rate (WER) gaps. Across Whisper-medium, HuBERT-large, and Wav2Vec2-large on Common Voice and the Speech Accent Archive, we probe every encoder layer for metadata-derived sex/gender, age, and native/accent labels; construct centroid and probe-derived directions; inject them at selected layers; and compare downstream probe trajectories with matched WER changes. Sex labels are highly decodable (best macro-F1 0.924--0.941), native/accent labels are also above chance (0.544--0.696), and age is weaker (0.354--0.397). Of 22 post-selected reruns, nine have 95% paired-bootstrap intervals entirely below zero, yet every absolute source-group WER reduction is below 0.7 percentage points. Conversely, a local target-class probe rate can rise from 8.09% to 99.87% while WER worsens. Linear readability is therefore neither evidence of causal use nor a reliable mitigation method. Our results motivate evaluating speech-bias interventions jointly at representation, propagation, and task levels.

As pretrained large language models replace task-specific decoders in speech recognition, a critical question arises: do their text-derived priors make recognition fairer or more biased across demographic groups? We evaluate nine models spanning three architectural generations (CTC with no language model, encoder-decoder with an implicit LM, and LLM-based with an explicit pretrained decoder) on about 43,000 utterances across five demographic axes (ethnicity, accent, gender, age, first language) using Common Voice 24 and Meta's Fair-Speech, a controlled-prompt dataset that eliminates vocabulary confounds. On clean audio, three findings challenge assumptions: LLM decoders do not amplify racial bias (Granite-8B has the best ethnicity fairness, max/min WER = 2.28); Whisper exhibits pathological hallucination on Indian-accented speech with a non-monotonic insertion-rate spike to 9.62% at large-v3; and audio compression predicts accent fairness more than LLM scale. We then stress-test these findings under 12 acoustic degradation conditions (noise, reverberation, silence injection, chunk masking) across both datasets, totaling 216 inference runs. Severe degradation paradoxically compresses fairness gaps as all groups converge to high WER, but silence injection amplifies Whisper's accent bias up to 4.64x by triggering demographic-selective hallucination. Under masking, Whisper enters catastrophic repetition loops (86% of 51,797 insertions) while explicit-LLM decoders produce 38x fewer insertions with near-zero repetition; high-compression audio encoding (Q-former) reintroduces repetition pathology even in LLM decoders. These results suggest that audio encoder design, not LLM scaling, is the primary lever for equitable and robust speech recognition.

Speech technologies are deployed in high-stakes settings, yet fairness concerns remain fragmented across tasks and disciplines. Existing surveys either adopt a general machine-learning perspective that overlooks speech-specific properties or focus on a single task, missing failure patterns shared across the speech domain. Synthesizing over 400 studies spanning generation and perception tasks and emerging speech-language models, this survey presents a unified framework that links formal fairness definitions to evaluation, diagnosis, and mitigation. We formalize seven fairness definitions adapted to the speech modality and organize the field's conceptual evolution through three paradigms: Robustness, Representation, and Governance. We then ground evaluation metrics in the mathematical cores of these definitions and offer a decision tree for metric selection. We diagnose bias sources along the speech processing pipeline, surfacing speech-specific mechanisms such as channel bias as a demographic proxy and annotation subjectivity in emotion labels. We systematize mitigation strategies across four intervention stages, mapping each to the diagnosed sources. Finally, we identify open challenges and propose directions for future research.