Responsible Benchmarking of Fairness for Automatic Speech Recognition

Many studies have shown automatic speech processing (ASR) systems have unequal performance across speakergroups (SG's). However, the manner in which such studies arrive at this conclusion is inconsistent. To pave the wayfor more reliable results in future studies, we lay out best practices for benchmarking ASR fairness based on literaturefrom machine learning fairness, social sciences, and speech science. We first describe the importance of preciselythe fairness hypothesis being interrogated, and tailoring fairness metrics to apply specifically to said hypothesis.We then examine several benchmarks used to rate ASR systems on fairness and discuss how their results can bemisconstrued without assiduous oversight into the intersections between SG's. We find that evaluating fairnessbased on single heterogeneous SG's, such as they are defined in fairness benchmarks, can lead to misidentifyingwhich SG's are actually being mistreated by ASR systems. We advocate for as fine-grained an analysis as possibleof the intersectionality of as many demographic variables as are available in the metadata of fairness corpora in orderto tease out such spurious correlations

Identifying and typifying demographic unfairness in phoneme-level embeddings of self-supervised speech recognition models

Modern automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems have been observed to function better for certain speaker groups (SGs) than others, despite recent gains in overall performance. One potential impediment to progress towards fairer ASR is a more nuanced understanding of the types of modeling errors that speech encoder models make, and in particular the difference between the structure of embeddings for high-performance and low-performance SGs. This paper proposes a framework typifying two types of error that can occur in modeling phonemes in ASR systems: random error/high variance in phoneme embedding, vs systematic error/embedding bias. We find that training phoneme classification probes only on a single, typically disadvantaged SG, sometimes improves performance for that SG, which is evidence for the existence of SG-level bias in phoneme embeddings. On the other hand, we find that speakers and SGs with higher levels of phoneme variance are the same as those with worse phoneme prediction accuracy. We conclude that both types of error are present in phoneme embeddings and both are candidate causes for SG-level unfairness in ASR, though random error is likely a greater hindrance to fairness than systematic error. Furthermore, we find that finetuning encoder models using a fairness-enhancing algorithm (domain enhancing and adversarial training) changes neither the benefits of in-domain phoneme classification probe training, nor measured levels of random embedding error.

Where Do Self-Supervised Speech Models Become Unfair?

Speech encoder models are known to model members of some speaker groups (SGs) better than others. However, there has been little work in establishing why this occurs on a technological level. To our knowledge, we present the first layerwise fairness analysis of pretrained self-supervised speech encoder models (S3Ms), probing each embedding layer for speaker identification (SID) automatic speech recognition (ASR). We find S3Ms produce embeddings biased against certain SGs for both tasks, starting at the very first latent layers. Furthermore, we find opposite patterns of layerwise bias for SID vs ASR for all models in our study: SID bias is minimized in layers that minimize overall SID error; on the other hand, ASR bias is maximized in layers that minimize overall ASR error. The inverse bias/error relationship for ASR is unaffected when probing S3Ms that are finetuned for ASR, suggesting SG-level bias is established during pretraining and is difficult to remove.