Arghya Bhattacharya

Kavya Manohar, Arghya Bhattacharya, Kush Juvekar et al.

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.

Kush Juvekar, Kavya Manohar, Aditya Srinivas Menon et al.

Fine-tuning multilingual ASR models like Whisper for low-resource languages often improves read speech but degrades spontaneous audio performance, a phenomenon we term studio-bias. To diagnose this mismatch, we introduce Vividh-ASR, a complexity-stratified benchmark for Hindi and Malayalam across four tiers: studio, broadcast, spontaneous, and synthetic noise. Through a controlled study of learning-rate timing and curriculum ordering, we find that early large parameter updates improve global WER by 12 absolute points, while a hard-to-easy curriculum adds gains for spontaneous speech. These findings motivate reverse multi-stage fine-tuning (R-MFT), a training recipe that enables a parameter-efficient 244M Whisper model to match or exceed conventionally fine-tuned 769M counterparts. Representational analysis via CKA and SVD reveals effective schedules concentrate adaptation in the decoder, preserving the pre-trained encoder's acoustic geometry. We release the benchmark and models.

Kush Juvekar, Arghya Bhattacharya, Sai Khadloya et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are entering legal workflows, yet we lack a jurisdiction-specific framework to assess their baseline competence therein. We use India's public legal examinations as a transparent proxy. Our multi-year benchmark assembles objective screens from top national and state exams and evaluates open and frontier LLMs under real-world exam conditions. To probe beyond multiple-choice questions, we also include a lawyer-graded, paired-blinded study of long-form answers from the Supreme Court's Advocate-on-Record exam. This is, to our knowledge, the first exam-grounded, India-specific yardstick for LLM court-readiness released with datasets and protocols. Our work shows that while frontier systems consistently clear historical cutoffs and often match or exceed recent top-scorer bands on objective exams, none surpasses the human topper on long-form reasoning. Grader notes converge on three reliability failure modes: procedural or format compliance, authority or citation discipline, and forum-appropriate voice and structure. These findings delineate where LLMs can assist (checks, cross-statute consistency, statute and precedent lookups) and where human leadership remains essential: forum-specific drafting and filing, procedural and relief strategy, reconciling authorities and exceptions, and ethical, accountable judgment.