mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

AequeVox: Automated Fairness Testing of Speech Recognition Systems

arXiv 2110.09843 ↗First posted 19 Oct 2021cs.LG cs.CLcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) systems have become ubiquitous. They can be found in a variety of form factors and are increasingly important in our daily lives. As such, ensuring that these systems are equitable to different subgroups of the population is crucial. In this paper, we introduce, AequeVox, an automated testing framework for evaluating the fairness of ASR systems. AequeVox simulates different environments to assess the effectiveness of ASR systems for different populations. In addition, we investigate whether the chosen simulations are comprehensible to humans. We further propose a fault localization technique capable of identifying words that are not robust to these varying environments. Both components of AequeVox are able to operate in the absence of ground truth data. We evaluated AequeVox on speech from four different datasets using three different commercial ASRs. Our experiments reveal that non-native English, female and Nigerian English speakers generate 109%, 528.5% and 156.9% more errors, on average than native English, male and UK Midlands speakers, respectively. Our user study also reveals that 82.9% of the simulations (employed through speech transformations) had a comprehensibility rating above seven (out of ten), with the lowest rating being 6.78. This further validates the fairness violations discovered by AequeVox. Finally, we show that the non-robust words, as predicted by the fault localization technique embodied in AequeVox, show 223.8% more errors than the predicted robust words across all ASRs.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 64 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Oct 2021.

Builds on

23 of 64 references.

References · 23

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  2. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  3. 2020Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckListcited by 979
  4. 2017DeepXplore: Automated Whitebox Testing of Deep Learning Systemscited by 307
  5. 2018Audio Adversarial Examples: Targeted Attacks on Speech-to-Textcited by 268
  6. 2017DeepTest: Automated Testing of Deep-Neural-Network-driven Autonomous Carscited by 249
  7. 2018DeepGauge: Multi-Granularity Testing Criteria for Deep Learning Systemscited by 144
  8. 2017Fairness Testing: Testing Software for Discriminationcited by 123
  9. 2019Imperceptible, Robust, and Targeted Adversarial Examples for Automatic Speech Recognitioncited by 123
  10. 2018Automated Directed Fairness Testingcited by 77
  11. 2019Image Counterfactual Sensitivity Analysis for Detecting Unintended Biascited by 74
  12. 2018TensorFuzz: Debugging Neural Networks with Coverage-Guided Fuzzingcited by 67
11 more
  1. 2019Who is Real Bob? Adversarial Attacks on Speaker Recognition Systemscited by 66
  2. 2018Concolic Testing for Deep Neural Networkscited by 51
  3. 2018Fooling End-to-end Speaker Verification by Adversarial Examplescited by 39
  4. 2021DeepLocalize: Fault Localization for Deep Neural Networkscited by 37
  5. 2019DeepFault: Fault Localization for Deep Neural Networkscited by 29
  6. 2021RobOT: Robustness-Oriented Testing for Deep Learning Systemscited by 27
  7. 2020Astraea: Grammar-based Fairness Testingcited by 11
  8. 2018METTLE: a METamorphic testing approach to assessing and validating unsupervised machine LEarning systemscited by 8
  9. 2018DeepCruiser: Automated Guided Testing for Stateful Deep Learning Systemscited by 4
  10. 2019Grammar Based Directed Testing of Machine Learning Systemscited by 1
  11. 2021MLCheck- Property-Driven Testing of Machine Learning Modelscited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 4; 2024: 2; 2025: 1.

9 papers.