FairASR: Fair Audio Contrastive Learning for Automatic Speech Recognition

Jaemyung Yu; Jongsuk Kim; Junmo Kim; Minchan Kwon

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 25 references

FairASR: Fair Audio Contrastive Learning for Automatic Speech Recognition

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read FairASR reduces ASR error gaps across demographic groups without sacrificing accuracy.

desk verdict A plausibly useful but mechanism-unverified fairness pretraining objective for ASR; the reported WER-gap reductions are consistent but small and lack statistical support. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10747 v1 pith:MPAXKWJE submitted 2025-06-12 eess.AS

Jongsuk Kim , Jaemyung Yu , Minchan Kwon , Junmo Kim This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.AS

keywords fairnessautomaticspeechrecognitioncontrastivelearninggradientreversallayerdemographicbiasworderrorrategaprepresentationInfoNCE

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

FairASR is a pretraining objective that teaches a speech encoder to ignore who is speaking while still learning what is being said. It combines InfoNCE contrastive learning with a supervised contrastive loss whose gradients are reversed, so the encoder is pushed to produce representations that do not separate speakers by demographic group. The paper reports that on the FairSpeech dataset this objective, followed by CTC fine-tuning, lowers the WER gap across age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and first language relative to InfoNCE-only pretraining, at the cost of a slightly higher overall WER. The authors' case is that fairness should be built into the representation learning stage rather than patched on after the ASR model is trained.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pair of losses sharing one projection head: $L_{\mathrm{InfoNCE}}$ on the normal pooled embeddings and $L_{\mathrm{FSC}}$ on the same embeddings after a gradient reversal layer (GRL). The GRL passes activations unchanged but flips the sign of gradients during backpropagation, so the FSC loss—a standard supervised contrastive loss that pulls same-demographic samples together—acts adversarially on the encoder. The combined objective is $L_{\mathrm{FairASR}} = L_{\mathrm{InfoNCE}} + \lambda L_{\mathrm{FSC}}$, with SpecAugment creating the positive pairs for InfoNCE and the same projection head used for both branches. The ablation showing that a shared embedding space outperforms separate heads indicates that the two losses interact through a common projection.

What would settle it

Train the full FairASR pipeline, then evaluate the fine-tuned encoder by training a demographic classifier on its pooled representations (or measuring pairwise separability across demographic groups) on the FairSpeech held-out set. If the classifier accuracy or separability is comparable to the InfoNCE-only baseline, the pretraining invariance did not survive fine-tuning and the fairness gains come from something else, such as regularization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an adversarial contrastive objective applied during pretraining transfers to CTC fine-tuning and produces fairer ASR outputs. FairASR computes InfoNCE on the Conformer encoder's pooled embeddings and a Fair Supervised Contrastive (FSC) loss on the same embeddings passed through a gradient reversal layer; FSC pulls together samples that share a demographic label, and the reversed gradient makes the encoder suppress demographic separability. On FairSpeech, FairASR reduces the WER gap from 53.3% to 48.9% for ethnicity, from 32.4% to 31.4% for age, from 33.6% to 32.9% for gender, from 19.7% to 15.4% for socioeconomic background, and from 16.7% to 12.2% for first language, with total WER rising only slightly. UMAP visualization confirms that the pretrained representations overlap more across groups than the InfoNCE-only baseline.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the demographic invariance created during FairASR pretraining survives the subsequent CTC fine-tuning; the paper states this in Section 3.4 but never measures it, and if fine-tuning erases the invariance the reported fairness gains must be attributed to another mechanism.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim holds, speech pretraining can encode demographic fairness before any transcribed data is used for ASR fine-tuning.
FairASR narrows WER gaps across all five demographic dimensions in the FairSpeech study while keeping overall WER within a small margin of the InfoNCE-only baseline.
Sharing the projection head between InfoNCE and FSC losses is part of the method's effectiveness; separate heads degrade both WER and WER gap.
The balance parameter $\lambda$ is a practical control knob: too little weight on the fairness loss shrinks the fairness benefit, while larger weights shift the trade-off between accuracy and gap.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the claim that pretraining invariance survives fine-tuning is asserted, not measured; a demographic classifier on the final encoder would separate the pretraining effect from regularization occurring during mixed fine-tuning.
Editorial inference: because the WER gap depends only on the best and worst cohorts, the reported reductions could in part reflect changes at the extremes rather than uniform gains; per-cohort WER movement should be reported alongside the gap.
Editorial inference: the same GRL-plus-contrastive recipe could be applied to other self-supervised speech encoders or to speaker-attribute privacy, though the paper only demonstrates it on a Conformer-small backbone with FairSpeech.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The one thing to know: this paper proposes a pretraining objective that adds a gradient-reversed supervised contrastive loss over demographic labels to InfoNCE, and reports consistent WER-gap reductions across five demographic dimensions on FairSpeech. The results look real but modest, and the paper's central claim that the pretraining invariance survives CTC fine-tuning is asserted, not shown. The stress-test concern lands.

What's new: the specific combination of GRL with SupCon on demographic labels during audio pretraining, followed by CTC fine-tuning, is not in the cited literature. The paper is straightforward and the loss equations are explicit. Using an external dataset (FairSpeech) and an internal InfoNCE baseline is reasonable. The direction of the effect is consistent — every demographic gap is smaller than the InfoNCE-only model, even if some individual cohort WERs go up.

The soft spots are the usual but there is a load-bearing one. Section 3.4 says fine-tuning preserves demographic invariance without measuring it. The fairness loss operates on mean-pooled utterance vectors after a projection head, while the ASR decoder sees frame-level features. The UMAP in Fig. 3 is not shown for the fine-tuned encoder, so demographic information could be re-introduced at the frame level. If the invariance does not survive fine-tuning, the observed gap reductions may come from regularization rather than the claimed mechanism. That does not make the empirical result useless, but it means the paper overstates its design rationale.

The other issues are standard: no error bars, no multiple seeds, no significance tests. Some test cohorts are tiny — 76 utterances for Middle Eastern ethnicity — which makes gap estimates noisy. The paper also compares only against its own InfoNCE baseline and Whisper, not against existing fairness methods like adversarial learning [5], so we don't know if this is better than what is already out there. The absolute gap reductions are modest (gender 33.6→32.9, age 32.4→31.4, first language 16.7→12.2), and the word "significantly" is not backed by any statistics.

Who is this for: people working on fair ASR who want to see a simple pretraining trick that moves the needle. It is not a definitive result. But the question is timely and the method is simple enough to reproduce and test properly. I would send it to a serious referee, with the expectation that the author should either measure post-fine-tuning invariance or soften the mechanism claim, and add basic statistical rigor.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FairASR, a pretraining objective that combines InfoNCE contrastive learning with a gradient-reversal-based supervised contrastive loss over demographic labels, with the goal of learning demographic-agnostic speech representations. The authors pretrain a Conformer encoder on the FairSpeech dataset and then fine-tune it with CTC and an LSTM decoder. They report that, compared with an InfoNCE-only baseline, FairASR reduces the WER gap across age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and first language while incurring only a slight overall WER increase. The paper also includes ablations on whether the InfoNCE and fairness losses share an embedding space and on the value of the balance parameter lambda.

Significance. If the reported effect is real, FairASR would provide a simple and general pretraining-stage method for reducing demographic bias in ASR, and it would complement existing fine-tuning and post-hoc approaches. The evaluation uses an external fairness-focused dataset (FairSpeech) and an internal InfoNCE-only baseline, which avoids circularity and gives a clear comparison point. The ablations on embedding-space sharing and lambda are useful and help characterize the method's behavior. However, the significance is currently limited by the absence of statistical uncertainty quantification and by the lack of direct evidence for the claimed invariance-preservation mechanism after fine-tuning.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.4 and Eq. (3)] The central attribution claim is asserted but never measured. Section 3.4 states that 'Since fine-tuning is performed on FairASR-pretrained representations, the model preserves demographic invariance,' but no experiment verifies that the fine-tuned encoder's representations are demographic-agnostic. All reported fairness numbers are WER gaps after CTC fine-tuning, so the observed reductions could instead be caused by regularization from the auxiliary loss rather than by invariant representations. Moreover, Eq. (3) applies the FSC loss to the mean-pooled, projection-head features z_rev, whereas CTC fine-tuning uses the full frame-level sequence h. Demographic information can reside in frame-level temporal patterns destroyed by mean pooling, so the pretraining objective may not remove it from the features that the ASR decoder actually uses. I recommend adding a post-fine-tuning representation-level evaluation, such as training a linear probe or a small classifier on both frame-level and pooled features to predict demographic labels, and comparing InfoNCE-only versus FairASR encoders.
[Section 4.2, Table 1] The claim that FairASR 'significantly reduces the WER gap' is not supported by statistical evidence. The paper reports no confidence intervals, no multiple seeds, and no significance tests, and some cohorts have very few test utterances (e.g., 76 for Middle Eastern or North African and 101 for Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander). The observed reductions in WER gap, such as the ethnicity gap falling from 53.3% to 48.9%, may be within the noise range given these small cohorts. Please provide per-cohort WER uncertainty estimates (e.g., bootstrap confidence intervals) or at least multiple training seeds with standard deviations, and use an appropriate test for gap differences.
[Section 4.2, Figure 3] The UMAP visualization is qualitative and does not establish demographic invariance in the features used for ASR. The figure is likely generated from pretraining-stage pooled embeddings, but the paper does not state this clearly, and it is not shown for the fine-tuned encoder or for frame-level representations. A quantitative separability measure (e.g., demographic classification accuracy or a statistical independence test) on the fine-tuned encoder's outputs would be much stronger evidence and would also address the mechanism gap described above.

minor comments (4)

[Section 4.1.1, Table 1] In the '31 - 45' row, the train and test counts appear concatenated as '112221255'; this should likely be '11222' and '1255'. Please fix the formatting.
[Section 1] The phrase 'we take a reversed approach that intentionally discourages separation across demographic groups' is loose: the actual objective in Eq. (3) is a standard supervised contrastive loss on z_rev, and it is the gradient reversal that makes the encoder adversarially discourage demographic clustering. The wording should be adjusted for precision.
[Section 2] The statement that prior fairness approaches 'largely operate beyond the representation learning stage' is not fully accurate, since reference [5] (Zhang et al.) is an adversarial representation learning method. Clarify the distinction between adversarial training during fine-tuning and adversarial pretraining as proposed here.
[Section 4.1.3] The main results use only lambda = 0.1, while the ablation in Table 2 shows that lambda = 1 gives a lower total WER and comparable or better gaps on several dimensions. A brief explanation of why 0.1 was selected for the main comparison would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FairASR's claims are supported by empirical comparisons against an external benchmark (FairSpeech) and an internal InfoNCE baseline, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an empirical training-objective comparison. The FairASR objective (Eq. 5) combines InfoNCE (Eq. 2) with a gradient-reversed supervised contrastive loss (Eq. 3), and the claimed fairness outcome is the WER gap measured on the held-out FairSpeech test split. The demographic labels used in the FSC loss are inputs during pretraining, but the reported fairness metric is an externally computed WER gap between cohort WERs; nothing in Eqs. (2)-(6) makes the WER gap equal to the loss by construction. Hyperparameters lambda and tau are reported choices swept in Table 2, not parameters fitted to the target fairness result. The paper cites prior work for standard building blocks (InfoNCE, SupCon, GRL, FairSpeech) but does not rely on any prior result by the same authors, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from self-citation. The reviewer's substantive concern that demographic invariance may not survive CTC fine-tuning (Section 3.4 asserts rather than measures this) is a limitation of empirical support, not circularity: the conclusion is not forced by definition or by a fitted quantity. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

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

The central claim rests on the FairSpeech dataset, an external benchmark, and on three assumed mechanisms: demographic labels are meaningful, adversarial pretraining invariance survives fine-tuning, and the max-min WER gap is a stable measure. Hyperparameters lambda, tau, the audio-length filter, and the training schedule are chosen by hand. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

lambda balance parameter = 0.1 (main), 0.01 and 1.0 in ablations
Controls the weight of the fair supervised contrastive loss relative to InfoNCE; chosen by hand after ablations in Table 2, not derived.
Contrastive temperature tau = 0.2
Sets the sharpness of both InfoNCE and FSC softmax distributions; chosen without sensitivity analysis.
Maximum audio length filter = 280,000 samples (17.5 seconds)
Drops 3,526 of 26,472 FairSpeech samples for training stability; no analysis of demographic skew in the removed set.
Pretraining schedule = 100 epochs, batch size 64, learning rate 1e-4, weight decay 0.01
Standard choices reported in Section 4.1.3; the central empirical outcome depends on them but they are not treated as free variables in the study.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption FairSpeech demographic labels are accurate and the labels used for evaluation are the same construct the FSC loss removes.
The entire fairness evaluation in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 treats age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and first language as ground-truth cohorts.
domain assumption Demographic invariance learned during pretraining transfers to the CTC fine-tuned ASR model.
Section 3.4 states 'the model preserves demographic invariance' without measuring the post-fine-tuning representation space.
domain assumption Gradient reversal against a demographic classifier reaches a useful equilibrium that reduces separability without destroying speech content.
Adversarial training is known to be unstable; the paper assumes the single GRL path works as intended in Section 3.2.2.
domain assumption The WER gap formula (max-min)/max is a stable and meaningful fairness metric for cohorts of very different sizes.
Used throughout Table 1 despite cohorts ranging from 76 to 1,255 test utterances, with no confidence bounds.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FairASR: Fair Audio Contrastive Learning for Automatic Speech Recognition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MPAXKWJE

@misc{pith2026250610747,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FairASR: Fair Audio Contrastive Learning for Automatic Speech Recognition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MPAXKWJE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10747}
}

read the original abstract

Large-scale ASR models have achieved remarkable gains in accuracy and robustness. However, fairness issues remain largely unaddressed despite their critical importance in real-world applications. In this work, we introduce FairASR, a system that mitigates demographic bias by learning representations that are uninformative about group membership, enabling fair generalization across demographic groups. Leveraging a multi-demographic dataset, our approach employs a gradient reversal layer to suppress demographic-discriminative features while maintaining the ability to capture generalizable speech patterns through an unsupervised contrastive loss. Experimental results show that FairASR delivers competitive overall ASR performance while significantly reducing performance disparities across different demographic groups.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10747 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Effect of FairASR on representation space. With standard contrastive learning (left), embeddings cluster by demographic labels. With FairASR (right), such separation is reduced, resulting in fairer representations. approach that intentionally discourages separation across demographic groups. We find that this approach preserves ASR accuracy while promoting fairness, offering a pretraining objective more compati… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Overview of the proposed adversarial learning framework. SpecAugment is applied to input spectrograms, and a Conformer encoder f(·) extracts feature embeddings h¯. A gradient reversal layer(GRL) generates adversarial embeddings h¯rev, which are passed through a shared projection head g(·). The model is trained with two losses: InfoNCE loss (red) for general representation learning and Fair Supervised Contrastive (FS… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** UMAP visualization of representations. Left: InfoNCE-only training shows demographic clustering. Right: FairASR promotes more mixed and fair representations. For data augmentation, we utilize SpecAugment with both time masking and frequency masking. Both pre-training and ASR fine-tuning are performed with a total batch size of 64. The ASR fine-tuning settings follow the standard Conformer training configuration, ex… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[5]

Unlike most prior work that ad- dresses fairness post hoc, FairASR directly encourages demo- graphic invariance during pretraining

Conclusion In this work, we introduce FairASR, a fair contrastive learning framework that mitigates demographic bias at the representation learning stage of ASR models. Unlike most prior work that ad- dresses fairness post hoc, FairASR directly encourages demo- graphic invariance during pretraining. Extensive experiments show that FairASR consistently red...

work page
[1]

Despite these advance- ments, the issue of fairness in ASR systems remains underex- plored

Introduction In recent years, large-scale automatic speech recognition (ASR) models, such as Whisper [1], have achieved remarkable ad- vancements in accuracy and robustness. Despite these advance- ments, the issue of fairness in ASR systems remains underex- plored. This is particularly concerning as these systems are in- creasingly integrated into everyda...

work page
[2]

FairASR: Fair Audio Contrastive Learning for Automatic Speech Recognition

Related Work Fairness in automatic speech recognition (ASR) has become a prominent research focus due to concerns about performance biases across different demographics of speakers. Several stud- ies [11, 2, 12, 3, 4, 13, 14] have demonstrated that ASR ac- curacy can vary significantly across demographic attributes such as speaker gender, age, and accent....

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[3]

Our method explicitly utilizes demographic labels during training, ensuring that learned representations remain robust, discrimina- tive, and fair across diverse populations

Method In this work, we propose a demographic-invariant representa- tions learning method by combining self-supervised contrastive learning and adversarial supervised contrastive learning. Our method explicitly utilizes demographic labels during training, ensuring that learned representations remain robust, discrimina- tive, and fair across diverse popula...

work page
[4]

Experimental Settings 4.1.1

Experimental Results 4.1. Experimental Settings 4.1.1. Dataset We use the FairSpeech dataset [7], the most recently published dataset addressing fairness in ASR. Since the dataset contains some excessively long audio segments, we restrict the maxi- mum length to 280k samples at a 16kHz sample rate (17.5 sec- onds) to ensure stable training. This filtering...

work page
[6]

Acknowledgements This work was supported by Institute of Information & communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIT) (No.RS-2022- II220184, Development and Study of AI Technologies to Inex- pensively Conform to Evolving Policy on Ethics)

work page 2022
[7]

Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision,

A. Radford, J. W. Kim, T. Xu, G. Brockman, C. McLeavey, and I. Sutskever, “Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision,” inInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2023, pp. 28 492–28 518

2023
[8]

Reducing Geographic Disparities in Automatic Speech Recognition via Elastic Weight Consolidation

V . A. Trinh, P. Ghahremani, B. King, J. Droppo, A. Stol- cke, and R. Maas, “Reducing geographic disparities in auto- matic speech recognition via elastic weight consolidation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.07850, 2022

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

Show all 25 references

[9]

Quan- tifying bias in automatic speech recognition,

S. Feng, O. Kudina, B. M. Halpern, and O. Scharenborg, “Quan- tifying bias in automatic speech recognition,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.15122, 2021

2021 arXiv
[10]

Towards measuring fairness in speech recognition: Casual conversations dataset transcriptions,

C. Liu, M. Picheny, L. Sarı, P. Chitkara, A. Xiao, X. Zhang, M. Chou, A. Alvarado, C. Hazirbas, and Y . Saraf, “Towards measuring fairness in speech recognition: Casual conversations dataset transcriptions,” inICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Acoustics, Spee...

2022
[11]

Mitigating un- wanted biases with adversarial learning,

B. H. Zhang, B. Lemoine, and M. Mitchell, “Mitigating un- wanted biases with adversarial learning,” inProceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 2018, pp. 335–340

2018
[12]

Toward fairness in speech recognition: Discovery and mitigation of per- formance disparities,

P. Dheram, M. Ramakrishnan, A. Raju, I.-F. Chen, B. King, K. Powell, M. Saboowala, K. Shetty, and A. Stolcke, “Toward fairness in speech recognition: Discovery and mitigation of per- formance disparities,” inProc. Interspeech 2022, 2022, pp. 1268– 1272

2022
[13]

Towards measuring fairness in speech recog- nition: Fair-speech dataset,

I.-E. Veliche, Z. Huang, V . Ayyat Kochaniyan, F. Peng, O. Kalinli, and M. L. Seltzer, “Towards measuring fairness in speech recog- nition: Fair-speech dataset,” inProc. Interspeech 2024, 2024, pp. 1385–1389

2024
[14]

Supervised contrastive learning,

P. Khosla, P. Teterwak, C. Wang, A. Sarna, Y . Tian, P. Isola, A. Maschinot, C. Liu, and D. Krishnan, “Supervised contrastive learning,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 18 661–18 673, 2020

2020
[15]

Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation,

Y . Ganin and V . Lempitsky, “Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation,” 2015

2015
[16]

Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding,

A. v. d. Oord, Y . Li, and O. Vinyals, “Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03748, 2018

2018 arXiv
[17]

Gender and dialect bias in youtube’s automatic cap- tions,

R. Tatman, “Gender and dialect bias in youtube’s automatic cap- tions,” inProceedings of the first ACL workshop on ethics in nat- ural language processing, 2017, pp. 53–59

2017
[18]

Gender representation in french broadcast corpora and its impact on asr performance,

M. Garnerin, S. Rossato, and L. Besacier, “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, 2019, pp. 3–9

2019
[19]

Counterfactually fair automatic speech recognition,

L. Sarı, M. Hasegawa-Johnson, and C. D. Yoo, “Counterfactually fair automatic speech recognition,”IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, vol. 29, pp. 3515–3525, 2021

2021
[20]

Artie bias corpus: An open dataset for detecting demographic bias in speech applications,

J. Meyer, L. Rauchenstein, J. D. Eisenberg, and N. Howell, “Artie bias corpus: An open dataset for detecting demographic bias in speech applications,” inProceedings of the twelfth language re- sources and evaluation conference, 2020, pp. 6462–6468

2020
[21]

Racial disparities in automated speech recognition,

A. Koenecke, A. Nam, E. Lake, J. Nudell, M. Quartey, Z. Menge- sha, C. Toups, J. R. Rickford, D. Jurafsky, and S. Goel, “Racial disparities in automated speech recognition,”Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, vol. 117, no. 14, pp. 7684–7689, 2020

2020
[22]

Specaugment: A simple data augmen- tation method for automatic speech recognition,

D. S. Park, W. Chan, Y . Zhang, C.-C. Chiu, B. Zoph, E. D. Cubuk, and Q. V . Le, “Specaugment: A simple data augmen- tation method for automatic speech recognition,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.08779, 2019

1904 arXiv
[23]

Conformer: Convolution- augmented transformer for speech recognition,

A. Gulati, J. Qin, C.-C. Chiu, N. Parmar, Y . Zhang, J. Yu, W. Han, S. Wang, Z. Zhang, Y . Wuet al., “Conformer: Convolution- augmented transformer for speech recognition,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.08100, 2020

2005 arXiv
[24]

Long short-term memory,

A. Graves and A. Graves, “Long short-term memory,”Supervised sequence labelling with recurrent neural networks, pp. 37–45, 2012

2012
[25]

Con- nectionist temporal classification: Labelling unsegmented se- quence data with recurrent neural networks,

A. Graves, S. Fern ´andez, F. Gomez, and J. Schmidhuber, “Con- nectionist temporal classification: Labelling unsegmented se- quence data with recurrent neural networks,” inProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, 2006, pp. 369–376

2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [5]

Unlike most prior work that ad- dresses fairness post hoc, FairASR directly encourages demo- graphic invariance during pretraining

Conclusion In this work, we introduce FairASR, a fair contrastive learning framework that mitigates demographic bias at the representation learning stage of ASR models. Unlike most prior work that ad- dresses fairness post hoc, FairASR directly encourages demo- graphic invariance during pretraining. Extensive experiments show that FairASR consistently red...

work page

[2] [1]

Despite these advance- ments, the issue of fairness in ASR systems remains underex- plored

Introduction In recent years, large-scale automatic speech recognition (ASR) models, such as Whisper [1], have achieved remarkable ad- vancements in accuracy and robustness. Despite these advance- ments, the issue of fairness in ASR systems remains underex- plored. This is particularly concerning as these systems are in- creasingly integrated into everyda...

work page

[3] [2]

FairASR: Fair Audio Contrastive Learning for Automatic Speech Recognition

Related Work Fairness in automatic speech recognition (ASR) has become a prominent research focus due to concerns about performance biases across different demographics of speakers. Several stud- ies [11, 2, 12, 3, 4, 13, 14] have demonstrated that ASR ac- curacy can vary significantly across demographic attributes such as speaker gender, age, and accent....

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[4] [3]

Our method explicitly utilizes demographic labels during training, ensuring that learned representations remain robust, discrimina- tive, and fair across diverse populations

Method In this work, we propose a demographic-invariant representa- tions learning method by combining self-supervised contrastive learning and adversarial supervised contrastive learning. Our method explicitly utilizes demographic labels during training, ensuring that learned representations remain robust, discrimina- tive, and fair across diverse popula...

work page

[5] [4]

Experimental Settings 4.1.1

Experimental Results 4.1. Experimental Settings 4.1.1. Dataset We use the FairSpeech dataset [7], the most recently published dataset addressing fairness in ASR. Since the dataset contains some excessively long audio segments, we restrict the maxi- mum length to 280k samples at a 16kHz sample rate (17.5 sec- onds) to ensure stable training. This filtering...

work page

[6] [6]

Acknowledgements This work was supported by Institute of Information & communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIT) (No.RS-2022- II220184, Development and Study of AI Technologies to Inex- pensively Conform to Evolving Policy on Ethics)

work page 2022

[7] [7]

Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision,

A. Radford, J. W. Kim, T. Xu, G. Brockman, C. McLeavey, and I. Sutskever, “Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision,” inInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2023, pp. 28 492–28 518

2023

[8] [8]

Reducing Geographic Disparities in Automatic Speech Recognition via Elastic Weight Consolidation

V . A. Trinh, P. Ghahremani, B. King, J. Droppo, A. Stol- cke, and R. Maas, “Reducing geographic disparities in auto- matic speech recognition via elastic weight consolidation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.07850, 2022

work page Pith review arXiv 2022