Anna Seo Gyeong Choi

Allison Koenecke, Anna Seo Gyeong Choi, Katelyn X. Mei et al.

Speech-to-text services aim to transcribe input audio as accurately as possible. They increasingly play a role in everyday life, for example in personal voice assistants or in customer-company interactions. We evaluate Open AI's Whisper, a state-of-the-art automated speech recognition service outperforming industry competitors, as of 2023. While many of Whisper's transcriptions were highly accurate, we find that roughly 1\% of audio transcriptions contained entire hallucinated phrases or sentences which did not exist in any form in the underlying audio. We thematically analyze the Whisper-hallucinated content, finding that 38\% of hallucinations include explicit harms such as perpetuating violence, making up inaccurate associations, or implying false authority. We then study why hallucinations occur by observing the disparities in hallucination rates between speakers with aphasia (who have a lowered ability to express themselves using speech and voice) and a control group. We find that hallucinations disproportionately occur for individuals who speak with longer shares of non-vocal durations -- a common symptom of aphasia. We call on industry practitioners to ameliorate these language-model-based hallucinations in Whisper, and to raise awareness of potential biases amplified by hallucinations in downstream applications of speech-to-text models.

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.

Chanwoo Park, Anna Seo Gyeong Choi, Sunghye Cho et al.

Societies worldwide are rapidly entering a super-aged era, making elderly health a pressing concern. The aging population is increasing the burden on national economies and households. Dementia cases are rising significantly with this demographic shift. Recent research using voice-based models and large language models (LLM) offers new possibilities for dementia diagnosis and treatment. Our Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning method combines speech and language models. The process starts with automatic speech recognition to convert speech to text. We add a linear layer to an LLM for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and non-AD classification, using supervised fine-tuning (SFT) with CoT reasoning and cues. This approach showed an 16.7% relative performance improvement compared to methods without CoT prompt reasoning. To the best of our knowledge, our proposed method achieved state-of-the-art performance in CoT approaches.

Anna Seo Gyeong Choi, Jonghyeon Park, Myungwoo Oh

Recent advancements in machine learning have significantly improved speech recognition, but recognizing speech from non-fluent or accented speakers remains a challenge. Previous efforts, relying on rule-based pronunciation patterns, have struggled to fully capture non-native errors. We propose two data-driven approaches using speech corpora to automatically detect mispronunciation patterns. By aligning non-native phones with their native counterparts using attention maps, we achieved a 5.7% improvement in speech recognition on native English datasets and a 12.8% improvement for non-native English speakers, particularly Korean speakers. Our method offers practical advancements for robust Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) systems particularly for situations where prior linguistic knowledge is not applicable.

Eileen Pan, Anna Seo Gyeong Choi, Maartje ter Hoeve et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are ubiquitous in modern day natural language processing. However, previous work has shown degraded LLM performance for under-represented English dialects. We analyze the effects of typifying "standard" American English language questions as non-"standard" dialectal variants on multiple choice question answering tasks and find up to a 20% reduction in accuracy. Additionally, we investigate the grammatical basis of under-performance in non-"standard" English questions. We find that individual grammatical rules have varied effects on performance, but some are more consequential than others: three specific grammar rules (existential "it", zero copula, and y'all) can explain the majority of performance degradation observed in multiple dialects. We call for future work to investigate bias mitigation methods focused on individual, high-impact grammatical structures.

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.

Katelyn Xiaoying Mei, Anna Seo Gyeong Choi, Hilke Schellmann et al.

Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) has transformed daily tasks from video transcription to workplace hiring. ASR systems' growing use warrants robust and standardized auditing approaches to ensure automated transcriptions of high and equitable quality. This is especially critical for people with speech and language disorders (such as aphasia) who may disproportionately depend on ASR systems to navigate everyday life. In this work, we identify three pitfalls in existing standard ASR auditing procedures, and demonstrate how addressing them impacts audit results via a case study of six popular ASR systems' performance for aphasia speakers. First, audits often adhere to a single method of text standardization during data pre-processing, which (a) masks variability in ASR performance from applying different standardization methods, and (b) may not be consistent with how users - especially those from marginalized speech communities - would want their transcriptions to be standardized. Second, audits often display high-level demographic findings without further considering performance disparities among (a) more nuanced demographic subgroups, and (b) relevant covariates capturing acoustic information from the input audio. Third, audits often rely on a single gold-standard metric -- the Word Error Rate -- which does not fully capture the extent of errors arising from generative AI models, such as transcription hallucinations. We propose a more holistic auditing framework that accounts for these three pitfalls, and exemplify its results in our case study, finding consistently worse ASR performance for aphasia speakers relative to a control group. We call on practitioners to implement these robust ASR auditing practices that remain flexible to the rapidly changing ASR landscape.