Whisper-style ASR models provide strong zero-shot transcription, but their residual errors are not evenly distributed across datasets, recording conditions, and metadata-based groups. We study when lightweight low-rank adaptation (LoRA) improves Whisper and whether observed gains require group-specific adapters. Across Common Voice, LibriSpeech, and VoxPopuli, we compare zero-shot Whisper, pooled LoRA, and group-specific LoRA under matched within-group splits. We find that adaptation is not uniformly beneficial: gains are concentrated in difficult Common Voice groups, are consistent on VoxPopuli, and largely disappear on low-error LibriSpeech. Crucially, pooled LoRA often matches, and sometimes clearly outperforms, group-specific LoRA. Gains over zero-shot should therefore be tested against matched pooled adaptation before being interpreted as evidence of personalization.
Figures & tables
Dataset
Groups
Utterances
Approx. audio hours
Mean duration (s)
Common Voice
9,139
1,376,296
1,932.7
5.06
LibriSpeech
1,949
249,787
852.9
12.29
VoxPopuli
260
106,779
295.8
9.97
Table 1: Dataset statistics under the within-group protocol. Audio hours are approximate totals; repeated adaptation subsets are sampled separately.
Dataset
Mean WER
Median WER
P90 WER
P99 WER
WER > 10%
WER > 15%
WER > 20%
Common Voice
7.89
6.42
15.28
31.58
25.5
10.4
4.4
LibriSpeech
5.01
4.45
8.43
13.85
4.8
0.6
0.3
VoxPopuli
11.37
10.82
15.23
22.75
63.8
10.4
2.3
Table 2: Per-group zero-shot WER distributions with Whisper small. WER values and tail masses are expressed as percentages; P90 and P99 denote the 90th and 99th percentiles across groups.
Figure 1: Per-group zero-shot WER distributions for Whisper small. The y-axis shows WER as a fraction. The violin shapes summarize the distribution across speaker proxies, and the box plots indicate the central tendency and spread. The long upper tails highlight difficult-group effects, especially for Common Voice.
Dataset
Model
WER%
Common Voice
tiny
18.71
Common Voice
base
13.76
Common Voice
small
9.02
Common Voice
medium
6.89
LibriSpeech
tiny
9.65
LibriSpeech
base
6.92
Table 3: Overall zero-shot Whisper performance under the within-group protocol. WER values are percentages; these population-level numbers provide context for the matched adaptation subsets in Table 4 .
Dataset
Model
Matched zero-shot WER
Pooled LoRA WER
Personalized LoRA WER
Common Voice
tiny
19.66 ± 2.85
19.31 ± 0.95
18.69 ± 1.12
Common Voice
base
14.29 ± 2.11
14.13 ± 0.77
14.10 ± 0.62
Common Voice
small
9.38 ± 1.64
9.12 ± 0.53
9.47 ± 0.50
Common Voice
medium
7.11 ± 1.40
6.75 ± 0.50
6.94 ± 0.55
LibriSpeech
tiny
11.62 ± 1.20
11.61 ± 1.09
11.65 ± 1.24
LibriSpeech
base
8.14 ± 0.58
8.05 ± 0.70
8.09 ± 0.68
Table 4: Adaptation across datasets. WER values are percentages; bold marks the best adapted condition in each row.
Model
Difficulty band
Zero-shot WER
Pooled WER
Gain (pp)
tiny
Hardest 10%
48.81
38.94
+9.88
base
Hardest 10%
38.00
31.30
+6.70
small
Hardest 10%
26.29
22.21
+4.09
medium
Hardest 10%
19.71
17.49
+2.22
tiny
Hardest 20%
38.13
32.44
+5.69
base
Hardest 20%
29.02
24.93
+4.09
Table 5: Pooled LoRA on Common Voice difficulty bands. WER columns are percentages; gain is the absolute percentage-point improvement over zero-shot.
Model
Method
Hardest 10%
Middle 40–60%
Easiest 20%
tiny
Pooled
+12.61 ± 0.44
+1.47 ± 0.11
+0.35 ± 0.06
tiny
Personalized
+11.36 ± 0.22
+1.43 ± 0.05
+0.37 ± 0.04
base
Pooled
+10.91 ± 0.19
+0.87 ± 0.02
+0.43 ± 0.02
base
Personalized
+8.77 ± 0.15
+0.59 ± 0.07
+0.15 ± 0.03
small
Pooled
+8.08 ± 0.24
+0.62 ± 0.05
+0.51 ± 0.03
small
Personalized
+6.22 ± 0.24
+0.17 ± 0.03
+0.08 ± 0.02
Table 6: Common Voice difficulty-band comparison of pooled and personalized LoRA. Values are absolute WER gains in percentage points.
Automatic Speech recognition (ASR) struggles with Pathological speech due to persistent speaker-specific mismatch. In clinical and accessibility scenarios, only limited target-speaker data is typically available, making full model retraining impractical. We present a component-level analysis of LoRA adaptation in Whisper, investigating how adapter placement interacts with the model size, training efficiency and utterance-duration in single-speaker settings. Our experimental comparative study shows that while scaling reduces errors, it does not eliminate mismatch. Furthermore, the full attention LoRa provides the most reliable accuracy, and the best time--accuracy trade-off. Improvements vary across utterance length, with medium-length recordings benefiting the most, while short and long utterances remain challenging. These findings highlight the importance of adaptation placement and duration-dependent evaluation, under challenging, data-scarce personalization scenarios.
Giuseppe Giaimis, Sergei Katkov, Muhammad Azfar Yaqub +1
Pretrained automatic speech recognition (ASR) models such as Whisper perform well but still need domain adaptation to handle unseen parlance. In many real-world settings, collecting speech data is impractical, necessitating text-only adaptation. We propose WhisTLE, a deeply supervised, text-only adaptation method for pretrained encoder-decoder ASR models. WhisTLE trains a variational autoencoder (VAE) to model encoder outputs from text and fine-tunes the decoder using the learned text-to-latent encoder, optionally combined with text-to-speech (TTS) adaptation. At inference, the original encoder is restored, incurring no extra runtime cost. Across four datasets and four ASR models, WhisTLE alone helps in 28 of 32 (88%) cases, with an average relative WER drop of 22%. Using WhisTLE alone or in combination with other adaptation approaches helps in 116 of 144 (81%) cases, with an average additional WER drop of 15%. Given all treatments that improve on baseline scores, WhisTLE helps in 45 of 55 (82%) cases, with an average additional relative WER drop of 16%. WhisTLE with TTS reduces word error rate (WER) by a relative 49% and outperforms all non-WhisTLE baselines in 100 of 112 scenarios. We also find that WhisTLE additively complements any combination of other domain adaptation approaches; we thus recommend the inclusion of WhisTLE during standard processes for adapting encoder-decoder ASR models. Our code is at https://github.com/akshat0123/WhisTLE
Domain-specific speech remains a persistent challenge for automatic speech recognition (ASR), even for state-of-the-art systems like OpenAI's Whisper. We introduce Whisper: Courtside Edition, a novel multi-agent large language model (LLM) pipeline that enhances Whisper transcriptions without retraining. The pipeline intercepts Whisper's initial transcript, applies specialized LLM agents for domain context identification, named entity recognition, and jargon detection, and generates compact prompts that guide Whisper's decoder. Evaluated on 421 NBA basketball commentary segments (a domain characterized by dense proper nouns and technical terminology) our best pipeline achieves a statistically significant 17.0% relative reduction in word error rate (WER; from 0.217 to 0.180, p<0.001). Improvements are observed in 40.1% of segments with degradation in only 7.1%, substantially outperforming direct transcript post-editing. These results demonstrate that prompt-based augmentation can deliver scalable domain adaptation for ASR, offering a practical alternative to costly model fine-tuning.