ASTER: Automatic Speech Recognition System Accessibility Testing for Stutterers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The popularity of automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems nowadays leads to an increasing need for improving their accessibility. Handling stuttering speech is an important feature for accessible ASR systems. To improve the accessibility of ASR systems for stutterers, we need to expose and analyze the failures of ASR systems on stuttering speech. The speech datasets recorded from stutterers are not diverse enough to expose most of the failures. Furthermore, these datasets lack ground truth information about the non-stuttered text, rendering them unsuitable as comprehensive test suites. Therefore, a methodology for generating stuttering speech as test inputs to test and analyze the performance of ASR systems is needed. However, generating valid test inputs in this scenario is challenging. The reason is that although the generated test inputs should mimic how stutterers speak, they should also be diverse enough to trigger more failures. To address the challenge, we propose Aster, a technique for automatically testing the accessibility of ASR systems. Aster can generate valid test cases by injecting five different types of stuttering. The generated test cases can both simulate realistic stuttering speech and expose failures in ASR systems. Moreover, Aster can further enhance the quality of the test cases with a multi-objective optimization-based seed updating algorithm. We implemented Aster as a framework and evaluated it on four open-source ASR models and three commercial ASR systems. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of Aster and find that it significantly increases the word error rate, match error rate, and word information loss in the evaluated ASR systems. Additionally, our user study demonstrates that the generated stuttering audio is indistinguishable from real-world stuttering audio clips.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".