Bias in speech datasets comes from not having enough speakers from different backgrounds, inconsistent audio quality, and cultural assumptions in the data.
Speech recognition models trained on uniform datasets can perform up to 35% worse in the real world than models trained on diverse data.
Sometimes, errors in speech recognition can be useful. If they happen consistently for certain groups, they can be a signal for things like health conditions.
Fixing bias requires a combination of statistical analysis, machine learning-based detection, and fairness audits to check for demographic disparities.
We use speech recognition systems every day. They power the voice assistants on our phones, transcribe our meetings, and provide accessibility tools for millions of people.
But these systems often fail for certain speakers. A voice assistant that understands one accent perfectly might struggle with another. A transcription service that works well for formal speech might fail on a regional dialect. These are the result of biases in the datasets used to train these models.
Bias in speech datasets doesn’t come from just one place. It’s the result of choices made at every step of the data process. There are four main sources of this bias.
Speech datasets are often filled with speakers from wealthier, more digitally connected parts of the world. Languages like English, Mandarin, and Spanish have millions of hours of recorded speech available.
But minority or low-resource languages get much less attention. Even in well-resourced languages, accents from rural areas or underrepresented communities are often left out. A report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) highlights how this underrepresentation can lead to performance disparities in biometric identification technologies, including voice.
This imbalance creates a narrow view of what “normal” speech sounds like. When models trained on this data encounter speakers outside that narrow range, their accuracy drops.
Recordings can have different levels of background noise or be made with different quality microphones. If one group’s recordings are made in a studio and another’s are made in a noisy environment, the model might incorrectly learn that the second group’s speech is harder to understand, when the real problem is the recording quality.
It often affects the same groups that are already underrepresented, creating a cycle where their speech is both rare in the dataset and poorly captured.
Sometimes, a group might be well-represented in the training data but not in the testing data, or the other way around. This can make a system seem accurate during testing, but it will fail when used in the real world where the demographics are different.
Inconsistent transcriptions make this problem worse.
If transcribers are not familiar with a certain dialect, they might misunderstand it, creating errors that the model then learns.
The tools used to process speech data, like Tokenization processes, pronunciation dictionaries, might be designed with certain languages or accents in mind. These choices can build bias into the system from the start, making it hard to achieve fairness even if the training data is diverse.
Error detection requires a multi-pronged approach. MIT Press published a comprehensive survey of annotation error detection methods in 2023, outlining three primary strategies.
Statistical methods look for unusual patterns in the annotations. Metrics that measure agreement between different annotators can show if the guidelines are unclear or the data is ambiguous.
For speech data, these methods can flag transcripts with a high number of errors or inconsistent speaker labels. These are signs that a manual review is needed.
Machine learning models can be trained to find likely annotation errors. A model trained on high-quality annotations can flag predictions that it is not confident about, marking them for human review.
Another approach is to use multiple models. If different models disagree on a particular sample, it’s often a sign of an error or an ambiguous case.
These methods use annotations from multiple people to find disagreements. The simplest form is majority voting, where the most common annotation is assumed to be correct. More advanced methods can take into account the reliability of each annotator.
For speech transcription, this can help identify parts of the audio where annotators disagreed, pointing to either ambiguity in the speech or a misunderstanding of certain speech patterns.
Finding errors is not enough. Fairness requires measuring performance across different demographic groups. Several metrics are used to audit speech systems for bias.
Demographic parity requires that accuracy rates are equal across groups. A system achieves demographic parity if the word error rate (WER) for one accent matches the WER for another.
This metric is intuitive but has limitations. Equal error rates do not guarantee equal utility if the underlying speech patterns differ in complexity or if certain groups face higher stakes from errors.
Equalized odds requires that true positive rates and false positive rates are equal across groups. For speech recognition, this translates to equal rates of correct transcription and equal rates of false insertions or deletions.
This metric accounts for different base rates of speech patterns across groups, making it more robust than demographic parity.
Calibration requires that confidence scores reflect true accuracy across groups. If a model reports 90% confidence, it should be correct 90% of the time, regardless of the speaker's demographic group.
Miscalibration can lead to over-reliance on inaccurate predictions for certain groups, amplifying the harm of errors.
Reducing bias requires making intentional choices throughout the data process. Here are five effective strategies.
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)