mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Temporal Taxation Compounds Under Post-Training Compression of Whisper Models

arXiv 2609.28739 ↗First posted 23 Sep 2026cs.CL cs.SDcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Automatic speech recognition models are audited for demographic fairness at full precision, yet the models that ship to production have been quantized, pruned, and distilled. We ask whether post-training weight compression, which alters model weights rather than the audio signal or its feature representation, redistributes error burden across demographic groups. Across the Whisper family on Fair-Speech, Common Voice 25, and AfriSpeech-200, 50% Wanda pruning of Whisper-large-v3 sharply widens the Black/AA-vs-Asian temporal-taxation differential on Fair-Speech: the absolute word-error-rate gap between the worst- and best-served groups more than doubles; at an assumed cost of five seconds of correction effort per transcription error this is a rise from 30 to 64 seconds of correction time per minute of speech. This +111% relative increase is invariant to the assumed per-error cost, survives an audio-quality control, and is only partly mitigated by beam-search decoding, which still leaves an +86% increase. At edge model size, INT4 HQQ quantization compounds catastrophic transcript loops on West African accents by factors of five to seven. Distillation, by contrast, narrows demographic gaps in 21 of 27 evaluated settings (teacher-student pair, precision, and dataset), with the exceptions concentrated on a single model pair. We cast the temporal-taxation construct of Choi and Choi (2025) as a quantitative metric, and show that single-snapshot fairness audits on full-precision models do not capture the deployment-time burden that compression places on already-marginalized speakers.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Sep 2026.

Builds on

18 of 31 references.

References · 18

  1. 2022Robust Speech Recognition via Large-Scale Weak Supervisioncited by 3,972
  2. 2022GPTQ: Accurate Post-Training Quantization for Generative Pre-trained Transformerscited by 1,838
  3. 2023SparseGPT: Massive Language Models Can Be Accurately Pruned in One-Shotcited by 1,090
  4. 2022LLM.int8(): 8-bit Matrix Multiplication for Transformers at Scalecited by 881
  5. 2019What Do Compressed Deep Neural Networks Forget?cited by 164
  6. 2020Characterising Bias in Compressed Modelscited by 162
  7. 2023Distil-Whisper: Robust Knowledge Distillation via Large-Scale Pseudo Labellingcited by 87
  8. 2024Careless Whisper: Speech-to-Text Hallucination Harmscited by 53
  9. 2021The Low-Resource Double Bind: An Empirical Study of Pruning for Low-Resource Machine Translationcited by 46
  10. 2023On The Impact of Machine Learning Randomness on Group Fairnesscited by 26
  11. 2022Intriguing Properties of Compression on Multilingual Modelscited by 15
  12. 2024The Impact of Inference Acceleration on Bias of LLMscited by 9
6 more
  1. 2025Edge-ASR: Towards Low-Bit Quantization of Automatic Speech Recognition Modelscited by 5
  2. 2025Fairness of Automatic Speech Recognition: Looking Through a Philosophical Lenscited by 5
  3. 2026Do LLM Decoders Listen Fairly? Benchmarking How Language Model Priors Shape Bias in Speech Recognitioncited by 3
  4. 2024Efficient Compression of Multitask Multilingual Speech Modelscited by 2
  5. 2024Reexamining Racial Disparities in Automatic Speech Recognition Performance: The Role of Confounding by Provenancecited by 2
  6. 2026Beyond Word Error Rate: Auditing the Diversity Tax in Speech Recognition through Dataset Cartographycited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.