Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Everyone deserves their voice to be heard: Analyzing Predictive Gender Bias in ASR Models Applied to Dutch Speech Data

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Whisper, a state-of-the-art speech recognition model family, shows statistically significant gender-based word error rate disparities on Dutch speech, generally recognizing female voices more accurately than male voices across model sizes.

desk verdict Worth reading as a careful Dutch-language ASR bias audit, but the abstract oversells the significance pattern in its own tables. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09431 v1 pith:YKSYZT4C submitted 2024-11-14 cs.CL

Rik Raes , Saskia Lensink , Mykola Pechenizkiy This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords automaticspeechrecognitiongenderbiasDutchWhisperworderrorratefairnessmetricsquality-of-serviceharmWERparity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that Whisper, a state-of-the-art automatic speech recognition model family, is predictively biased by gender on Dutch speech, and that this bias matters as a quality-of-service harm for automatic subtitling. Evaluating five model sizes on an open corpus of read Dutch sentences and on roughly 37 hours of Dutch broadcast TV and radio, the authors compare word error rate, character error rate, and a BERT-based semantic similarity across male and female speakers. They find substantial and statistically significant word error rate disparities between gender groups, with female speech generally recognized more accurately than male speech, and larger models showing more pronounced bias on read speech. The study also proposes a WER Parity metric, a ratio bound on group word error rates meant to flag unfair quality-of-service gaps, grounded in a moral framework that ties fairness measurement to concrete harms. If correct, the findings imply that Dutch automatic subtitling systems built on Whisper will systematically transcribe male and female speakers with unequal accuracy.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a two-part evaluation protocol. First, per-speaker WER scores are computed with a word-count-weighted mean and aggregated by speaker ID, removing the dependence that would arise from multiple clips by the same speaker; significance is then tested with t-tests or ANOVA, switching to Mann-Whitney U or Welch ANOVA when normality or homogeneity assumptions fail. Second, the proposed WER Parity metric compares the larger group WER to the smaller one as a ratio bound, flagging unfairness when $\max(\mathrm{WER}_{\mathrm{male}}, \mathrm{WER}_{\mathrm{female}}) / \min(\mathrm{WER}_{\mathrm{male}}, \mathrm{WER}_{\mathrm{female}}) \le 1.25$ is violated. The Whisper models themselves are the object under test, and the text normalizer from the original Whisper paper is used to standardize transcripts before scoring.

What would settle it

Recompute the gender WER comparisons on a subset of the Dutch broadcaster's data where each speaker's gender is verified by the speakers themselves rather than inferred from names; if the statistically significant female-over-male gaps for the tiny, base, and medium models shrink to non-significance, the central bias claim is an artifact of label noise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central claim is that gender bias in Whisper is real, measurable, and consistent in direction on Dutch data: across all five model sizes, per-speaker word error rates differ significantly between men and women, with female speech recognized more accurately in most settings (for example, a relative WER advantage of about 10–11% for the medium and large models on read speech, and much larger relative gaps of 20–28% for the tiny and base models on broadcast data). The bias is established through two-sample t-tests and one-way ANOVA after checking normality and variance assumptions, and it persists across the read-speech and broadcast domains, though not in every speech category. A separate fairness check, the proposed WER Parity metric, finds some of these gaps unfair at a 25% relative threshold, particularly for broadcast radio and eloquent TV speech. The paper also argues that the morally relevant harm is quality-of-service: unequal subtitle accuracy that can distort public perception and exclude groups.

Load-bearing premise

The entire comparison assumes the male/female labels are correct, but the open-corpus labels are self-reported and the broadcaster labels are inferred from speaker names; if a material share of those labels is wrong, the measured WER gaps and the bias conclusion are not trustworthy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dutch broadcasters using Whisper for automatic subtitling should expect systematically lower word error rates for female speakers than for male speakers on eloquent TV and radio content, with the gap varying by model size.
  • Selecting a Whisper model for Dutch subtitling involves a three-way trade-off: larger models improve overall accuracy but can increase gender bias on read speech, while the medium model offers the best accuracy-to-speed balance and the large model is the only one deemed fair across all broadcast categories.
  • Statistical significance and fairness are distinct: a statistically significant WER gap can be classified as fair under the proposed 25% WER Parity bound, so deployment decisions should report both.
  • The BERT-based semantic similarity metric used here was unreliable for short Common Voice sentences, so it should not be used as a standalone quality-of-service measure for Dutch ASR without further refinement.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the broadcaster's gender labels are inferred from names, the true bias could be partially confounded with name-associated differences in speaking style or program type; a label-verified re-analysis would tell whether the female advantage survives.
  • The finding that larger models show more bias on read speech but less on broadcast speech suggests that bias does not scale monotonically with capacity; testing intermediate checkpoints on matched domain data could reveal whether fine-tuning or domain-specific training is the effective lever.
  • The 25% WER Parity threshold is a convention chosen with the broadcaster rather than derived from a cost model; linking the threshold to the actual utility loss of mis-subtitled content for deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers would place fairness judgments on firmer normative ground.
  • The same per-speaker aggregation and parity-ratio protocol can be applied to age, accent, or non-binary gender groups on datasets that carry those attributes, which would show whether the female-over-male pattern is specific to gender or a proxy for other speech characteristics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper evaluates five Whisper model sizes (tiny, base, small, medium, large) on Dutch speech from the Common Voice dataset and a Dutch public broadcasting (NPO) dataset. It compares word error rate, character error rate, and BERT-based semantic similarity across binary gender groups, using weighted per-speaker metrics and statistical tests with assumption checks. It also proposes a WER Parity fairness metric with a threshold chosen after discussions with the NPO, and interprets results through a moral framework for quality-of-service harms. The authors report that female speech is generally recognized better than male speech, that larger models tend to be more accurate but also show more significant WER differences, and that the medium model offers a practical performance/efficiency trade-off.

Significance. If the findings are reported accurately, the paper provides a useful empirical contribution to the growing literature on demographic bias in ASR systems, and it is one of the few studies targeting Dutch data in a real-world subtitling context. The methodology is generally careful: per-speaker aggregation reduces statistical dependence, the authors check normality and homogeneity assumptions and use non-parametric alternatives, and the fairness discussion is explicitly grounded in a moral framework. The proposed WER Parity metric is transparent and easy to apply. However, the central claim as stated in the abstract overstates the evidence in the paper's own tables, and the absence of multiple-testing correction and exact test statistics weakens the statistical conclusions. These issues are fixable within the scope of a revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section 3.1, Table 1; Section 3.2, Table 2; Section 4] The abstract's claim of "substantial disparities in WER among gender groups across all model sizes, with bias identified through statistical testing" is not supported by the reported significance tests. In Table 1 only the medium and large models carry significance markers on Common Voice; tiny, base, and small do not. In Table 2 the 'All' column is significant only for tiny and base, the medium model has no significant marker in any column, and several per-category cells are not significant. The Section 4 bullet "Significant biases were observed across gender attributes, with larger models exhibiting more pronounced disparities" also overgeneralizes. Please revise the abstract, Section 4, and conclusion to state the actual pattern, for example that statistically significant gender differences appear for the larger Common Voice models and for a sparse subset of NPO conditions.
  2. [Section 2.4; Tables 1 and 2] The manuscript does not report the test statistics, degrees of freedom, or exact p-values for any of the significance tests, and no multiple-testing correction is applied despite the large number of comparisons (five model sizes times multiple speech categories, roughly 25 tests in total). With this many comparisons, several p<0.05 results are expected by chance. Please provide a table of exact p-values or confidence intervals, report which specific test was used in each comparison (t-test, Welch, or Mann-Whitney), and apply a multiple-testing correction or explicitly justify treating each comparison as a separate family. This is necessary to evaluate whether the claim of statistically identified bias survives.
  3. [Section 2.2; Section 4.1] Gender labels for the NPO dataset are inferred from speaker names and contextual clues, and the manuscript acknowledges this risk in Section 4.1 but does not validate the labels. Since the group-level WER comparison is the foundation of the bias claim, a material share of mislabeled or non-binary speakers could change the conclusions. Please add a sensitivity analysis or at least quantify the expected labeling accuracy, and discuss the limitation that only binary gender is considered.
  4. [Section 2.4, Eq. (4); Tables 2 and 3] The WER Parity threshold of 25% is presented as 'deemed reasonable after discussions with the NPO,' but no sensitivity analysis is reported, and the metric's output is interpreted as 'unfair and relevant differences' versus 'fair.' Because the paper alternates between fairness judgments derived from this threshold and statistical bias testing, the arbitrariness of the threshold weakens the fairness conclusions even though the threshold does not affect the significance tests. Please show how the fairness verdicts in Table 2 change for a range of epsilon values, and clearly separate threshold-based fairness claims from statistically identified predictive bias.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.4, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) and the surrounding text contain formatting artifacts such as 'W ERmale' and the typo 'a fairness metrics'; please correct these to 'WER_male' and 'a fairness metric.'
  2. [Section 2.3] The word 'proprose' should be 'propose.'
  3. [Section 3.1] The phrase 'relative gender bias of 0.9% (11.4%)' is ambiguous; please clarify that 0.9% is the absolute percentage-point difference and 11.4% is the relative difference, and use the same convention consistently in Section 3.2.
  4. [Section 2.4, Eq. (3)] The BERT-based similarity calculation does not specify which BERT checkpoint or language model was used for Dutch (e.g., multilingual BERT, BERTje, or another model); without this detail the BSS results are not reproducible.
  5. [Section 3.2; Table 3] Table 3 reports CER values without significance markers, but the text states that CER 'follows the same trend' as WER; either add significance tests for CER or explicitly describe Table 3 as descriptive only.
  6. [Section 3.2; Section 4] The statement 'the large model demonstrates fairness across all categories' in Section 3.2 is based on the WER Parity threshold, while the same model has statistically significant WER differences in the Eloquent and Radio categories; please clarify the distinction between fairness (threshold-based) and bias (significance-based) in this sentence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity; the central bias finding rests on independent statistical tests and public data.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claim—that Whisper shows statistically detectable gender-based WER disparities on Dutch speech—is derived from per-speaker WER aggregation followed by standard two-sample t-tests/ANOVA, with Mann-Whitney/Welch alternatives when assumptions fail, applied to two independently sourced datasets (Common Voice and NPO). These significance tests are not constructed from the proposed WER Parity metric: the 25% threshold was 'deemed reasonable after discussions with the NPO' and is explicitly separated from the statistical tests ('The fairness metric indicates whether differences in WER are relevant and, thus, unfair, whereas statistical tests will indicate whether a significant difference exists'). No fitted parameter is recycled as a prediction, and the parity metric does not feed back into the significance testing. The only in-house citation is the Weerts et al. moral framework [39], which includes a co-author of this paper, but it is used to motivate the fairness discussion rather than to derive the empirical result; removing it would not change any WER comparison or p-value. The abstract's sweeping 'across all model sizes' claim is stronger than the significance markers in Tables 1 and 2 support, and the lack of multiple-testing correction is a correctness/robustness concern, not circularity. The reliance on self-reported or context-inferred gender labels is a data-quality limitation acknowledged in Section 4.1, not a circular derivation. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its input by construction, so there is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or conceptual entities are postulated; the WER Parity metric is a thresholded ratio of existing error rates, not an entity. The free parameters are the fairness threshold and the unreported subgroup inclusion cutoff, both of which affect the fairness conclusions. The axioms are labeling accuracy, independence after aggregation, and the normative mapping from WER to harm.

free parameters (2)
  • WER Parity threshold epsilon = 0.25
    Chosen after discussions with the NPO rather than determined a priori (Section 2.4); the fairness verdicts depend on this value, and no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Minimum subgroup size for inclusion in Common Voice analysis = not specified
    Section 2.2 excludes groups with fewer instances as unrepresentative without stating the numeric cutoff; this affects which gender groups are compared.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Common Voice demographic self-reports, especially gender, are accurate enough for group comparisons.
    Section 2.2 uses the metadata as ground truth; Section 4.1 acknowledges inaccuracies could skew results.
  • domain assumption NPO speaker gender can be inferred from speaker names and contextual clues into a binary category.
    Section 2.2 states gender metadata is inferred from contextual clues such as speaker names; errors propagate directly into group WER means.
  • domain assumption Per-speaker aggregation makes observations independent enough for t-tests and ANOVA.
    Section 2.4 aggregates over speaker IDs to remove dependence and then applies standard tests; the assumption is stated but not validated with mixed models.
  • domain assumption WER is a morally relevant operationalization of quality-of-service harm for subtitling.
    Section 2.3 argues quality-of-service harm is the relevant category, then Section 2.4 uses WER as the basis for the fairness metric; this is a normative choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Everyone deserves their voice to be heard: Analyzing Predictive Gender Bias in ASR Models Applied to Dutch Speech Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YKSYZT4C

@misc{pith2026241109431,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Everyone deserves their voice to be heard: Analyzing Predictive Gender Bias in ASR Models Applied to Dutch Speech Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YKSYZT4C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09431}
}
read the original abstract

Recent research has shown that state-of-the-art (SotA) Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) systems, such as Whisper, often exhibit predictive biases that disproportionately affect various demographic groups. This study focuses on identifying the performance disparities of Whisper models on Dutch speech data from the Common Voice dataset and the Dutch National Public Broadcasting organisation. We analyzed the word error rate, character error rate and a BERT-based semantic similarity across gender groups. We used the moral framework of Weerts et al. (2022) to assess quality of service harms and fairness, and to provide a nuanced discussion on the implications of these biases, particularly for automatic subtitling. Our findings reveal substantial disparities in word error rate (WER) among gender groups across all model sizes, with bias identified through statistical testing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09431 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flowchart of the evaluation methodology. Predictions are made by a model on a data set. The performance of this model is then evaluated by measuring the WER, CER, and BSS on all predictions with a weight according to the number of words in the instance. Next, the weighted average of these scores is taken by aggregating over the speaker IDs to remove data dependencies and perform statistical testing to find out wheth… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Semi-spontaneous Dutch Speech Dataset for Speech Enhancement and Speech Recognition

    eess.AS 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    On real noisy Dutch semi-spontaneous speech, five of eight SOTA ASR models reach WER under 22%, yet five single-channel SE methods fail to improve and often degrade ASR.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Adda-Decker, M., Lamel, L.: Do speech recognizers prefer female speakers? In: Ninth European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (2005)

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    Available at SSRN (2016)

    Ajunwa, I., Friedler, S., Scheidegger, C.E., Venkatasubramanian, S.: Hiring by algorithm: predicting and preventing disparate impact. Available at SSRN (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.06670 (2019)

    Ardila, R., Branson, M., Davis, K., Henretty, M., Kohler, M., Meyer, J., Morais, R., Saunders, L., Tyers, F.M., Weber, G.: Common voice: A massively-multilingual speech corpus. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.06670 (2019)

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.14534 (2020)

    Bartl, M., Nissim, M., Gatt, A.: Unmasking contextual stereotypes: Measuring and mitigating bert’s gender bias. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.14534 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Cognitive Computation 13(4), 1008–1018 (2021)

    Bhardwaj, R., Majumder, N., Poria, S.: Investigating gender bias in bert. Cognitive Computation 13(4), 1008–1018 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14050 (2020)

    Blodgett, S.L., Barocas, S., Daumé III, H., Wallach, H.: Language (technology) is power: A critical survey of" bias" in nlp. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14050 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    ACM SIGKDD explorations newsletter 1(2), 1–11 (2000)

    Chakrabarti, S.: Data mining for hypertext: A tutorial survey. ACM SIGKDD explorations newsletter 1(2), 1–11 (2000)

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    In: Proceedings of the 23rd Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (2022)

    Chan, M.P.Y., Choe, J., Li, A., Chen, Y., Gao, X., Holliday, N.: Training and typological bias in asr performance for world englishes. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Journal of accounting and economics 12(1-3), 15–36 (1990)

    Christie, A.A.: Aggregation of test statistics: An evaluation of the evidence on contracting and size hypotheses. Journal of accounting and economics 12(1-3), 15–36 (1990)

    1990

  2. [10]

    (12 2017), nIPS 2017 Keynote

    Crawford, K.: The trouble with bias. (12 2017), nIPS 2017 Keynote

    2017

  3. [11]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805 (2018)

    Devlin,J.,Chang,M.W.,Lee,K.,Toutanova,K.:Bert:Pre-trainingofdeepbidirec- tional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Procedia Computer Science128, 32–37 (2018) 4 https://npo.nl/ Analyzing Predictive Gender Bias in Dutch ASR 15

    Errattahi, R., El Hannani, A., Ouahmane, H.: Automatic speech recognition errors detection and correction: A review. Procedia Computer Science128, 32–37 (2018) 4 https://npo.nl/ Analyzing Predictive Gender Bias in Dutch ASR 15

    2018

  5. [13]

    Computer Speech & Language p

    Feng, S., Halpern, B.M., Kudina, O., Scharenborg, O.: Towards inclusive automatic speech recognition. Computer Speech & Language p. 101567 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.15122 (2021)

    Feng, S., Kudina, O., Halpern, B.M., Scharenborg, O.: Quantifying bias in auto- matic speech recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.15122 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    In: 2023 International Conference on Speech Technology and Human-Computer Dialogue (SpeD)

    Fuckner, M., Horsman, S., Wiggers, P., Janssen, I.: Uncovering bias in asr sys- tems: Evaluating wav2vec2 and whisper for dutch speakers. In: 2023 International Conference on Speech Technology and Human-Computer Dialogue (SpeD). pp. 146–151. IEEE (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on AI for smart TV content production, access and delivery

    Garnerin, M., Rossato, S., Besacier, L.: Gender representation in french broadcast corpora and its impact on asr performance. In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on AI for smart TV content production, access and delivery. pp. 3–9 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    In: 3rd Workshop on Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing

    Garnerin, M., Rossato, S., Besacier, L.: Investigating the impact of gender repre- sentation in asr training data: A case study on librispeech. In: 3rd Workshop on Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing. pp. 86–92. Association for Compu- tational Linguistics (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07740 (2021)

    Ghorbani, B., Firat, O., Freitag, M., Bapna, A., Krikun, M., Garcia, X., Chelba, C., Cherry, C.: Scaling laws for neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07740 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency

    Hertweck, C., Heitz, C., Loi, M.: On the moral justification of statistical parity. In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. pp. 747–757 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics (Volume 2: Short Papers)

    Hovy, D., Spruit, S.L.: The social impact of natural language processing. In: Pro- ceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics (Volume 2: Short Papers). pp. 591–598 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    In: The 2024 ACM Conference on Fair- ness, Accountability, and Transparency

    Koenecke, A., Choi, A.S.G., Mei, K.X., Schellmann, H., Sloane, M.: Careless whis- per: Speech-to-text hallucination harms. In: The 2024 ACM Conference on Fair- ness, Accountability, and Transparency. pp. 1672–1681 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Information Sciences 177(22), 4893–4905 (2007)

    Korenius, T., Laurikkala, J., Juhola, M.: On principal component analysis, cosine and euclidean measures in information retrieval. Information Sciences 177(22), 4893–4905 (2007)

    2007

  15. [23]

    In: 1st ACL Workshop on Gender Bias for Natural Language Processing (2019)

    Kurita, K., Vyas, N., Pareek, A., Black, A.W., Tsvetkov, Y.: Quantifying social biases in contextual word representations. In: 1st ACL Workshop on Gender Bias for Natural Language Processing (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Social psychological and personality science8(4), 355–362 (2017)

    Lakens, D.: Equivalence tests: A practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Social psychological and personality science8(4), 355–362 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    In: ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)

    Liu, C., Picheny, M., Sarı, L., Chitkara, P., Xiao, A., Zhang, X., Chou, M., Al- varado, A., Hazirbas, C., Saraf, Y.: Towards measuring fairness in speech recog- nition: casual conversations dataset transcriptions. In: ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustic...

    2022

  18. [26]

    In: ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)

    Liu, Z., Veliche, I.E., Peng, F.: Model-based approach for measuring the fairness in asr. In: ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). pp. 6532–6536. IEEE (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    In: Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference

    Meyer,J.,Rauchenstein,L.,Eisenberg,J.D.,Howell,N.:Artiebiascorpus:Anopen dataset for detecting demographic bias in speech applications. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference. pp. 6462–6468 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    In: Interspeech

    Moro-Velazquez,L.,Cho,J.,Watanabe,S.,Hasegawa-Johnson,M.A.,Scharenborg, O., Kim, H., Dehak, N.: Study of the performance of automatic speech recognition systems in speakers with parkinson’s disease. In: Interspeech. vol. 9, pp. 3875–3879 (2019) 16 R. Raes et al

    2019

  21. [29]

    BBC News, Jan (2017)

    Morrison, L.: Speech analysis could now land you a promotion. BBC News, Jan (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    NPJ digital medicine2(1), 55 (2019)

    Palanica, A., Thommandram, A., Lee, A., Li, M., Fossat, Y.: Do you understand the words that are comin outta my mouth? voice assistant comprehension of med- ication names. NPJ digital medicine2(1), 55 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.04356 (2022)

    Radford, A., Kim, J.W., Xu, T., Brockman, G., McLeavey, C., Sutskever, I.: Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.04356 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop of Arabic Corpus Linguistics WACL-2

    Sawalha, M., Abu Shariah, M.: The effects of speakers’ gender, age, and region on overall performance of arabic automatic speech recognition systems using the pho- netically rich and balanced modern standard arabic speech corpus. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop of Arabic C...

    2013

  25. [33]

    NPR All Things Considered (2015)

    Shahani, A.: Now algorithms are deciding whom to hire, based on voice. NPR All Things Considered (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Biometrika 52(3/4), 591–611 (1965)

    Shapiro, S.S., Wilk, M.B.: An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52(3/4), 591–611 (1965)

    1965

  27. [35]

    In: Equity and access in algorithms, mechanisms, and optimization, pp

    Suresh, H., Guttag, J.: A framework for understanding sources of harm throughout the machine learning life cycle. In: Equity and access in algorithms, mechanisms, and optimization, pp. 1–9 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    In: Proceed- ings of the first ACL workshop on ethics in natural language processing

    Tatman, R.: Gender and dialect bias in youtube’s automatic captions. In: Proceed- ings of the first ACL workshop on ethics in natural language processing. pp. 53–59 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    In: Interspeech

    Tatman, R., Kasten, C.: Effects of talker dialect, gender & race on accuracy of bing speech and youtube automatic captions. In: Interspeech. pp. 934–938 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    In: Speech and Natural Language: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, February 21-23, 1989 (1989)

    Ward, W.: Understanding spontaneous speech. In: Speech and Natural Language: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, February 21-23, 1989 (1989)

    1989

  31. [39]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.08536 (2022)

    Weerts, H., Royakkers, L., Pechenizkiy, M.: Does the end justify the means? on the moral justification of fairness-aware machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.08536 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    In: Proc

    Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Patel, T., Scharenborg, O.: Comparing data augmentation and training techniques to reduce bias against non-native accents in hybrid speech recognition systems. In: Proc. 1st Workshop on Speech for Social Good (S4SG). pp. 15–19 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    In: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the In- ternational Speech Communication Association, INTERSPEECH

    Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Halpern, B.M., Patel, T., Scharenborg, O.: Mitigating bias against non-native accents. In: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the In- ternational Speech Communication Association, INTERSPEECH. vol. 2022, pp. 3168–3172 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.