One reason is that traditional benchmarks overlook many of the conditions and qualities that make voice systems reliable, natural, contextually appropriate, and effective in practice. That's why we recently introduced held-out sets in Real World VoiceEQ, the Open-ASR Leaderboard, and the Far-field ASR Leaderboard: to measure more of what matters in real-world use.

However, broader measurement alone does not solve the problem. This phenomenon, sometimes called benchmark optimization or "benchmaxxing," is often discussed around machine learning, however, it has been difficult to measure in speech recognition.

Our latest research introduces three tests to help quantify it. We evaluated 11 widely used open-source ASR models and found that several of the highest-scoring systems reproduced benchmark transcripts from the VoxPopuli English and LibriSpeech (clean, other) datasets – even when the audio contradicted them, relevant words had been silenced, or the audio equally supported two different written forms.

In some cases, models appeared to rely not only on what was said, but also on subtle acoustic cues that indicated which benchmark they were being tested on. As a result, their scores overstated how well they could transcribe speech more generally.

VoxPopuli is known to contain a high number of transcription errors (which is why Artificial Analysis released a cleaned version). Our consensus disagreement probe tests what happens when leading ASR models encounter these errors: Do they accurately transcribe what the audio says, or reproduce the benchmark's incorrect reference transcript?

To test this at scale, we use an ensemble of independent models selected for their low phoneme error rate (PER).

Source link