arXiv subjects

Srishti Ginjala

Publications and source records attributed to Srishti Ginjala.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Fairness Beyond a Single Run: Training-Seed Variability in Speech LLM Adaptation

Demographic fairness gaps in automatic speech recognition are almost always reported from a single training run. We fine-tune the Q-former projector and LoRA adapters of a speech LLM at five audio compression factors and six random seeds, holding the encoder, base decoder, data and decoding fixed, and evaluate every run on Common Voice and Fair-Speech. At 460 h of clean LibriSpeech, the seed moves fairness metrics more than compression does on most demographic axes. A balanced 3x3 decomposition attributes 85.3% of the variation in Fair-Speech ethnicity normalized gap to the seed against 8.3% to compression (p = 0.009), though compression explains more on age and gender. Held-out LibriSpeech word error rate spreads by 0.04 points across those seeds while Common Voice spreads by 8.57, so these are not failed runs, and the effect survives controlling for accuracy and dropout. Scaling and diversifying the adaptation set to 960 h damps the effect but does not remove it. On Fair-Speech ethnicity, two single-run systems must differ by more than 0.30 in normalized gap to exceed seed variability.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Temporal Taxation Compounds Under Post-Training Compression of Whisper Models

Automatic speech recognition models are audited for demographic fairness at full precision, yet the models that ship to production have been quantized, pruned, and distilled. We ask whether post-training weight compression, which alters model weights rather than the audio signal or its feature representation, redistributes error burden across demographic groups. Across the Whisper family on Fair-Speech, Common Voice 25, and AfriSpeech-200, 50% Wanda pruning of Whisper-large-v3 sharply widens the Black/AA-vs-Asian temporal-taxation differential on Fair-Speech: the absolute word-error-rate gap between the worst- and best-served groups more than doubles; at an assumed cost of five seconds of correction effort per transcription error this is a rise from 30 to 64 seconds of correction time per minute of speech. This +111% relative increase is invariant to the assumed per-error cost, survives an audio-quality control, and is only partly mitigated by beam-search decoding, which still leaves an +86% increase. At edge model size, INT4 HQQ quantization compounds catastrophic transcript loops on West African accents by factors of five to seven. Distillation, by contrast, narrows demographic gaps in 21 of 27 evaluated settings (teacher-student pair, precision, and dataset), with the exceptions concentrated on a single model pair. We cast the temporal-taxation construct of Choi and Choi (2025) as a quantitative metric, and show that single-snapshot fairness audits on full-precision models do not capture the deployment-time burden that compression places on already-marginalized speakers.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Do LLM Decoders Listen Fairly? Benchmarking How Language Model Priors Shape Bias in Speech Recognition

As pretrained large language models replace task-specific decoders in speech recognition, a critical question arises: do their text-derived priors make recognition fairer or more biased across demographic groups? We evaluate nine models spanning three architectural generations (CTC with no language model, encoder-decoder with an implicit LM, and LLM-based with an explicit pretrained decoder) on about 43,000 utterances across five demographic axes (ethnicity, accent, gender, age, first language) using Common Voice 24 and Meta's Fair-Speech, a controlled-prompt dataset that eliminates vocabulary confounds. On clean audio, three findings challenge assumptions: LLM decoders do not amplify racial bias (Granite-8B has the best ethnicity fairness, max/min WER = 2.28); Whisper exhibits pathological hallucination on Indian-accented speech with a non-monotonic insertion-rate spike to 9.62% at large-v3; and audio compression predicts accent fairness more than LLM scale. We then stress-test these findings under 12 acoustic degradation conditions (noise, reverberation, silence injection, chunk masking) across both datasets, totaling 216 inference runs. Severe degradation paradoxically compresses fairness gaps as all groups converge to high WER, but silence injection amplifies Whisper's accent bias up to 4.64x by triggering demographic-selective hallucination. Under masking, Whisper enters catastrophic repetition loops (86% of 51,797 insertions) while explicit-LLM decoders produce 38x fewer insertions with near-zero repetition; high-compression audio encoding (Q-former) reintroduces repetition pathology even in LLM decoders. These results suggest that audio encoder design, not LLM scaling, is the primary lever for equitable and robust speech recognition.

cs.CL↗