Generative vs. Encoder Large Language Models for ASR Evaluation: A Comparative Study

Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) is typically evaluated using Word Error Rate (WER), which poorly reflects semantic similarity. While embedding-based metrics correlate better with human judgments, the respective roles of encoder and decoder-based Large Language Models (LLMs) remain underexplored. This paper presents a comparative study of both families for ASR evaluation. We analyze BERTScore and SemDist across different LLMs, layers, and pooling strategies, showing that both metrics can achieve strong correlation with human judgments when properly configured. For decoder models, we investigate generative LLMs in two settings: pairwise hypothesis selection via prompting and direct qualitative error classification. Our results show that encoder-based metrics remain highly competitive, while generative LLMs perform strongly in hypothesis comparison and improve the interpretability of ASR evaluation.

Towards Quantifying Benchmark Optimization in ASR Models

Public benchmarks are important measures of Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) model capabilities. However, by nature of being public, there is risk of models being optimized for these benchmarks in ways that do not generalize well to real-world data. We present a methodology for quantifying benchmark optimization, focusing on cases where the audio underdetermines the reference transcript. We identify three families of behavioral probes that reveal models' capabilities of reproducing benchmark reference spans despite underdetermined audio: reference disagreement, masked-number recovery, and orthographic switching. We find that the highest-scoring open source models output verbatim reference transcript spans even when the relevant audio is contradictory, masked, or ambiguous. Using a variety of mechanistic probes, we show that models respond to narrow acoustic cues to override the faithful representation of the audio in favor of a benchmark-optimized policy. We show the benchmark-optimized behavior can be causally manipulated via low-rank linear steering or simply appending audio to the end of a segment in some cases. Overall, our results indicate that high-performing models exhibit benchmark-conditioned behaviors that can inflate benchmark performance without reflecting improved general-purpose transcription ability.

Unadapted Multilingual ASR on a Garrusi Kurdish Evaluation Set: A Common-Reference Staged Normalization Analysis

Evaluating speech recognition for a Kurdish variety written in a Latin field orthography, using a model that outputs Arabic script, creates a measurement problem before a modelling one: direct scoring treats writing-system differences as recognition errors. Jointly normalizing reference and hypothesis avoids this, but also changes reference tokenization, mixing agreement gains with a change in the scoring denominator. I evaluate MMS-1B-all with the Central Kurdish (ckb) adapter, used as released without adaptation, on 1,722 Garrusi questionnaire segments from five speakers (9,763 reference word tokens; 117.9 minutes). I use a common-reference design: the reference is folded once and fixed at 9,763 tokens, while only the hypothesis representation varies. The raw Arabic-script hypothesis scores 111.70% WER and 100.92% CER, with zero exact word matches. Latin transliteration gives 102.36% WER and 57.89% CER; folding it into the reference's reduced orthography gives 97.85% and 51.20%. Thus RAW-to-FOLDED reduces measured WER by 13.85 points and CER by 49.72 points; folding alone accounts for 4.51 and 6.69 points. Substantial error remains: 14.53% of reference tokens are exact matches, edits are substitution-dominated, and per-segment WER is higher for shorter segments. A Southern Kurdish fine-tuned system (aranemini/southern-kurdish-asr), scored under the same design, performs worse on every speaker (1,703 segments), with 109.56% WER and 55.85% CER. However, 12,330 output characters fall outside the folding table, so these rates must be recomputed against the corrected fixed reference. The MMS output also contains 613 unconverted or unmapped characters, showing that part of the residual error reflects scoring-pipeline limits rather than recognition alone. I will release the fixed reference and segment-level results, subject to source-corpus sharing terms, to support independent checking.

ASR-Roundtrip Evaluation Can Mask Context- and Convention-Dependent Reading Errors in Chinese News TTS

ASR-roundtrip evaluation is widely used as a scalable proxy for text-to-speech (TTS) intelligibility, but it can produce false negatives for reading errors perceived by listeners. We study Chinese news TTS spans whose correct reading depends on context or domain conventions, such as sports scores, aircraft models, technical units, and membership names. In these cases, Raw TTS can choose a plausible but wrong reading while ASR transcribes the audio as the intended or surface-correct text. A targeted audit over 110 high-risk MiMo TTS cases, reported with a complete denominator, confirms 46 masked false negatives, 9 exposed TTS errors, and 55 cases with no Raw TTS error. A span-isolation diagnostic re-exposes 18/46 previously masked errors. A Raw-only CosyVoice audit on the same targeted pool confirms 51 masked cases. Across the 97 TTS-specific audio files labeled confirmed masked across the two audits, Qwen3-ASR surface-recovers 40 cases, whereas Paraformer does so in only 2. The results suggest that ASR-roundtrip is useful for screening but insufficient as standalone ground truth for Chinese news reading-risk evaluation.

Best-of-$N$ TTS Evaluation is Confounded by ASR Family Alignment

Best-of-$N$ (BoN) inference improves content consistency in zero-shot text-to-speech by selecting from $N$ candidates with an automatic speech recognition (ASR) verifier. We identify an underexplored evaluation confound: a verifier's apparent quality depends strongly on which ASR family judges it. On LibriSpeech-PC test-clean~\citep{librispeechpc} with F5-TTS~\citep{f5tts}, verifier rankings reverse across Whisper, wav2vec~2.0, and HuBERT evaluators, and same-family verifier-evaluator pairs recover 2-3$\times$ more oracle headroom than cross-family pairs despite near-identical representations (linear CKA $0.978$) -- a pattern consistent with identity- or lineage-level coupling rather than representational overlap. We propose two \textbf{cross-family rank ensembles} (rank-averaging and conjunctive max-rank) that attain the lowest mean WER across three independent evaluators -- $1.61\%$ at $N{=}10$ ($-12\%$ relative to F5-TTS) -- with no measurable degradation under automatic SIM-o/UTMOS metrics; the best single verifier drives WER from $2.06\%$ to $1.72\%$ ($-16.5\%$) under the official F5-TTS evaluator. We recommend cross-evaluator triangulation as default reporting practice.

OpenWER: Improving Cross-Lingual ASR Evaluation and Enabling Token-Based Accuracy Metrics

Advances in deep learning and end-to-end Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) have enabled robust multilingual models, but evaluation metrics remain limited in assessing accuracy. Efforts to improve or replace the common metric Word Error Rate (WER) often focus on English, leaving evaluations for low-resource languages under-explored and hindering fair cross-lingual comparisons. We present OpenWER, an open-source implementation that improves WER robustness through language-specific normalisation and compound word detection. A token-based Levenshtein alignment preserves complementary metrics and allows metadata embedding for granular accuracy scores. Our analysis of 52 languages shows absolute WER reductions of up to 25% compared to common libraries. OpenWER contributes to fairness in ASR research by increasing the reliability of WER across diverse languages and enabling more comprehensive accuracy evaluations.

When Multiple Scripts Matter: Evaluating ASR in Clinical Settings

Automatic speech recognition (ASR) in non-English clinical settings is challenged by multiscript variability, where the same term may appear in multiple valid orthographic forms. Conventional string-matching evaluation metrics often underestimate ASR performance by treating orthographic variants as errors. To address this issue, we introduce MultiClin, a clinical ASR benchmark designed to evaluate robustness to multiscript variability. Experiments across diverse ASR models show that multiscript-aware evaluation provides a fairer assessment of recognition quality than conventional single-reference evaluation. We further investigate the impact of script consistency during training and find that inconsistent script mappings increase orthographic uncertainty and hinder model convergence, with a balanced 50% mapping ratio producing the highest entropy. In contrast, script unification consistently yields the best ASR performance. Our dataset and code are publicly available at: https://github.com/aitrics-ronaldo/Interspeech_MultiClin.

Building and Evaluating a Synthetic Bengali Speech Resource for Telecom Customer Care

Speech systems used in customer-facing applications often require domain-specific language coverage. We present a synthetic Bengali speech dataset for telecom customer-care scenarios. The dataset contains 10,000 audio-text pairs, approximately 26.82 hours of 24 kHz speech, and predefined train, validation, and test splits of 9,000, 500, and 500 examples. It is publicly released on Hugging Face under the CC-BY-4.0 license. The speech was generated with OmniVoice in voice-cloning mode using a real female reference recording and transcript, with bfloat16 precision, 16 diffusion sampling steps, and a speaking-rate control value of 1.0. Along with the original Bengali text, the dataset provides a normalized transcript field designed for ASR/STT training and evaluation. We report an automatic intelligibility check over all 10,000 samples using a domain-adapted Whisper ASR model fine-tuned from bengaliAI/tugstugi_bengaliai-regional-asr_whisper-medium, along with a manual listening check on selected samples. The evaluation gives an average WER of 2.54%, an average CER of 0.59%, and median WER and CER values of 0.00%. These results suggest strong text-audio consistency under the selected automatic evaluation pipeline, while the paper also discusses the limitations of synthetic speech and STT-based evaluation.

Read What You Hear: Reference-Free Hypotheses Evaluation with Acoustic Discrepancy

Automatic speech recognition systems commonly rely on reference transcriptions for evaluation, while reference-free approaches often depend on internal confidence estimation or auxiliary language models. We propose READ (Reference-free Hypothesis Evaluation with Acoustic Discrepancy), a novel metric that evaluates ASR hypotheses directly from the speech signal. READ emphasizes the acoustic grounding of hypotheses. It uses a pretrained auto-regressive TTS model to compute the conditional likelihood of speech tokens given a text hypothesis, to measure fine-grained acoustic discrepancy between speech and text. Without additional training, READ can be applied for hypothesis refinement. Experiments show that READ correlates with specific recognition errors and improves ASR outputs, achieving up to 20\% relative error rate reduction, with particularly strong gains under noisy conditions.

SN-WER: Script-Normalized WER for Multi-Script Indic ASR Evaluation

Word Error Rate (WER) is the dominant metric for automatic speech recognition (ASR), but it can overestimate errors when references and hypotheses encode the same words in different scripts. This issue is common in multilingual settings where ASR models may emit romanized text. We propose Script-Normalized WER (SN-WER), a training-free, evaluation-only scoring method that transliterates both reference and hypothesis text into a language-specific canonical script before computing WER. We evaluate SN-WER on 5 Indic languages, 2 datasets, and 3 ASR models. On curated FLEURS data, SN-WER reduces inflated model gaps by up to 12%, while on noisier Common Voice data the reductions are smaller or inconsistent, indicating genuine recognition weaknesses rather than only script mismatch. Controlled stress tests show a 67% attenuation of artificial romanization-induced WER inflation, while lexical-substitution controls show near-identical sensitivity to semantic errors, with Delta SN-WER / Delta WER approximately 1.09. SN-WER is robust to transliterator choice, normalization changes, and shows low token-collision rates below 0.1% in the evaluated Indic setting. We argue that SN-WER should be reported alongside WER and CER as a companion metric for script-insensitive ASR evaluation, especially when transcripts feed downstream search, indexing, or multilingual LLM pipelines.

SCRIBE: Diagnostic Evaluation and Rich Transcription Models for Indic ASR

Automatic speech recognition replaces typing only when correction costs less than manual entry, a threshold determined by error types, not counts: fixing a misrecognized domain term costs far more than inserting a comma. Word error rate (WER) fails on two fronts: it collapses distinct error categories into a single scalar, and it structurally penalizes agglutinative languages where valid sandhi merges inflate scores. We introduce SCRIBE, a diagnostic framework that provides categorical error decomposition into lexical, punctuation, numeral, and domain-entity rates through sandhi-tolerant alignment with domain vocabulary injection. Human validation confirms SCRIBE aligns with expert judgment where WER does not. We release SCRIBE, an LLM curation pipeline, benchmarks, and open-weight rich transcription models for Hindi, Malayalam, and Kannada.

HATS: An Open data set Integrating Human Perception Applied to the Evaluation of Automatic Speech Recognition Metrics

Conventionally, Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) systems are evaluated on their ability to correctly recognize each word contained in a speech signal. In this context, the word error rate (WER) metric is the reference for evaluating speech transcripts. Several studies have shown that this measure is too limited to correctly evaluate an ASR system, which has led to the proposal of other variants of metrics (weighted WER, BERTscore, semantic distance, etc.). However, they remain system-oriented, even when transcripts are intended for humans. In this paper, we firstly present Human Assessed Transcription Side-by-side (HATS), an original French manually annotated data set in terms of human perception of transcription errors produced by various ASR systems. 143 humans were asked to choose the best automatic transcription out of two hypotheses. We investigated the relationship between human preferences and various ASR evaluation metrics, including lexical and embedding-based ones, the latter being those that correlate supposedly the most with human perception.

Qualitative Evaluation of Language Model Rescoring in Automatic Speech Recognition

Evaluating automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems is a classical but difficult and still open problem, which often boils down to focusing only on the word error rate (WER). However, this metric suffers from many limitations and does not allow an in-depth analysis of automatic transcription errors. In this paper, we propose to study and understand the impact of rescoring using language models in ASR systems by means of several metrics often used in other natural language processing (NLP) tasks in addition to the WER. In particular, we introduce two measures related to morpho-syntactic and semantic aspects of transcribed words: 1) the POSER (Part-of-speech Error Rate), which should highlight the grammatical aspects, and 2) the EmbER (Embedding Error Rate), a measurement that modifies the WER by providing a weighting according to the semantic distance of the wrongly transcribed words. These metrics illustrate the linguistic contributions of the language models that are applied during a posterior rescoring step on transcription hypotheses.