Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2503.06924

Automatic Speech Recognition for Non-Native English: Accuracy and Disfluency Handling

Michael McGuire
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Automatic speech recognition (ASR) has been an essential component of computer assisted language learning (CALL) and computer assisted language testing (CALT) for many years. As this technology continues to develop rapidly, it is important to evaluate the accuracy of current ASR systems for language learning applications. This study assesses five cutting-edge ASR systems' recognition of non-native accented English speech using recordings from the L2-ARCTIC corpus, featuring speakers from six different L1 backgrounds (Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Korean, Spanish, and Vietnamese), in the form of both read and spontaneous speech. The read speech consisted of 2,400 single sentence recordings from 24 speakers, while the spontaneous speech included narrative recordings from 22 speakers. Results showed that for read speech, Whisper and AssemblyAI achieved the best accuracy with mean Match Error Rates (MER) of 0.054 and 0.056 respectively, approaching human-level accuracy. For spontaneous speech, RevAI performed best with a mean MER of 0.063. The study also examined how each system handled disfluencies such as filler words, repetitions, and revisions, finding significant variation in performance across systems and disfluency types. While processing speed varied considerably between systems, longer processing times did not necessarily correlate with better accuracy. By detailing the performance of several of the most recent, widely-available ASR systems on non-native English speech, this study aims to help language instructors and researchers understand the strengths and weaknesses of each system and identify which may be suitable for specific use cases.

Explore related subjects

cs.CLcs.SDeess.AS

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Michael McGuire. 2025-03-30. Automatic Speech Recognition for Non-Native English: Accuracy and Disfluency Handling. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.06924

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

DA-Cramming: Enhancing Cost-Effective Language Model Pretraining with Dependency Agreement Integration

Pretraining language models is still a challenge for many researchers due to its substantial computational costs. As such, there is growing interest in developing more affordable pretraining methods. One notable advancement in this area is the Cramming technique (Geiping and Goldstein, 2022), which enables the pretraining of BERT-style language models using just one GPU in a single day. Building on this innovative approach, we introduce the Dependency Agreement Cramming (DA-Cramming), an efficient framework that integrates information about dependency agreements into the pretraining process. Unlike existing methods that leverage similar semantic information during finetuning, our approach represents a pioneering effort focusing on enhancing the foundational language understanding with semantic information during pretraining. We meticulously design a dual-stage pretraining work flow with four dedicated submodels to capture representative dependency agreements at the chunk level, effectively transforming these agreements into embeddings to benefit the pretraining. Extensive empirical results demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms previous methods across various tasks.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

BigO(Bench): Can LLMs Generate Code with Controlled Time and Space Complexity?

We introduce BigO(Bench), a novel coding benchmark designed to evaluate the capabilities of generative language models in understanding and generating code with specified time and space complexities. This benchmark addresses the gap in current evaluations that often overlook the ability of models to comprehend and produce code constrained by computational complexity. BigO(Bench) includes tooling to infer the algorithmic complexity of any Python function from profiling measurements, including human- or LLM-generated solutions. BigO(Bench) also includes of set of 3,105 coding problems and 1,190,250 solutions from Code Contests annotated with inferred (synthetic) time and space complexity labels from the complexity framework, as well as corresponding runtime and memory footprint values for a large set of input sizes. We present results from evaluating multiple state-of-the-art language models on this benchmark, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses in handling complexity requirements. In particular, token-space reasoning models are unrivaled in code generation but not in complexity understanding, hinting that they may not generalize well to tasks for which no reward was given at training time.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

SafetyFlow: An Agent-Flow System for Automated LLM Safety Benchmarking

The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) has intensified the requirement for reliable safety evaluation to uncover model vulnerabilities. To this end, numerous LLM safety evaluation benchmarks are proposed. However, existing benchmarks generally rely on labor-intensive manual curation, which causes excessive time and resource consumption. They also exhibit significant redundancy and limited difficulty. To alleviate these problems, we introduce SafetyFlow, the first agent-flow system designed to automate the construction of LLM safety benchmarks. SafetyFlow can automatically build a comprehensive safety benchmark in only four days without any human intervention by orchestrating seven specialized agents, significantly reducing time and resource cost. Equipped with versatile tools, the agents of SafetyFlow ensure process and cost controllability while integrating human expertise into the automatic pipeline. The final constructed dataset, SafetyFlowBench, contains 23,446 queries with low redundancy and strong discriminative power. Our contribution includes the first fully automated benchmarking pipeline and a comprehensive safety benchmark. We evaluate the safety of 49 advanced LLMs on our dataset and conduct extensive experiments to validate our efficacy and efficiency.

cs.CL↗