Hoon Choi

Anna Seo Gyeong Choi, Maria Teleki, James Caverlee et al.

Automatic speech recognition (ASR) evaluation compares system output to ground truth transcripts, with Word Error Rate (WER) quantifying the distance between them. But ground truth transcripts are not discovered - they are produced by human annotators following conventions that encode normative assumptions about which speech features matter. Different conventions (verbatim, non-verbatim, legal) produce different transcripts of identical speech and judge the same ASR output differently. This paper argues that reference monism - enforcing a single transcription convention as ground truth - commits epistemic injustice. Speakers with aphasia, whose speech includes clinically meaningful disfluencies, are systematically disadvantaged when evaluated against "clean" references that treat those disfluencies as errors. The harm is not merely differential performance, but that evaluative infrastructure lacks interpretive resources to recognize their contributions as legitimate. We develop a philosophical framework introducing the hermeneutical gap, formalize Epistemic Injustice Distance (EID) to measure reference monism's cost, and demonstrate empirically using AphasiaBank that WER varies depending on which convention defines ground truth. We propose WER-Range: reporting performance across legitimate conventions rather than assuming a single correct answer.

Anna Seo Gyeong Choi, Hoon Choi

Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) systems now mediate countless human-technology interactions, yet research on their fairness implications remains surprisingly limited. This paper examines ASR bias through a philosophical lens, arguing that systematic misrecognition of certain speech varieties constitutes more than a technical limitation -- it represents a form of disrespect that compounds historical injustices against marginalized linguistic communities. We distinguish between morally neutral classification (discriminate1) and harmful discrimination (discriminate2), demonstrating how ASR systems can inadvertently transform the former into the latter when they consistently misrecognize non-standard dialects. We identify three unique ethical dimensions of speech technologies that differentiate ASR bias from other algorithmic fairness concerns: the temporal burden placed on speakers of non-standard varieties ("temporal taxation"), the disruption of conversational flow when systems misrecognize speech, and the fundamental connection between speech patterns and personal/cultural identity. These factors create asymmetric power relationships that existing technical fairness metrics fail to capture. The paper analyzes the tension between linguistic standardization and pluralism in ASR development, arguing that current approaches often embed and reinforce problematic language ideologies. We conclude that addressing ASR bias requires more than technical interventions; it demands recognition of diverse speech varieties as legitimate forms of expression worthy of technological accommodation. This philosophical reframing offers new pathways for developing ASR systems that respect linguistic diversity and speaker autonomy.