Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Hallucinations in Neural Automatic Speech Recognition: Identifying Errors and Hallucinatory Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2401.01572 v1 pith:XXPRU2SO submitted 2024-01-03 cs.CL cs.SDeess.AS

classification cs.CLcs.SDeess.AS
keywords hallucinationshallucinatoryautomaticerrormodelmodelsnoiserecognition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Hallucinations are a type of output error produced by deep neural networks. While this has been studied in natural language processing, they have not been researched previously in automatic speech recognition. Here, we define hallucinations in ASR as transcriptions generated by a model that are semantically unrelated to the source utterance, yet still fluent and coherent. The similarity of hallucinations to probable natural language outputs of the model creates a danger of deception and impacts the credibility of the system. We show that commonly used metrics, such as word error rates, cannot differentiate between hallucinatory and non-hallucinatory models. To address this, we propose a perturbation-based method for assessing the susceptibility of an automatic speech recognition (ASR) model to hallucination at test time, which does not require access to the training dataset. We demonstrate that this method helps to distinguish between hallucinatory and non-hallucinatory models that have similar baseline word error rates. We further explore the relationship between the types of ASR errors and the types of dataset noise to determine what types of noise are most likely to create hallucinatory outputs. We devise a framework for identifying hallucinations by analysing their semantic connection with the ground truth and their fluency. Finally, we discover how to induce hallucinations with a random noise injection to the utterance.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. LLMs and Speech: Integration vs. Combination

    eess.AS 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    With matched data and sizes, CTC+LLM shallow fusion beats tight speech-LLM integration on in-domain ASR, while prefix LLMs win average WER on out-of-domain HuggingFace sets.

  2. Addressing Pitfalls in Auditing Practices of Automatic Speech Recognition Technologies: A Case Study of People with Aphasia

    cs.CY 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Across six ASR services, speakers with aphasia receive worse transcriptions than controls, and standard audit methods mask within-group disparities and hallucination risks.

  3. PSRB: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Persian ASR Systems

    eess.AS 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    PSRB, a 10.4-hour Persian benchmark built from 3,372 clips and 756 speakers, evaluates ten ASR models and introduces SW-WER, showing that systems are far weaker on regional accents, children's speech, and informal aud...

  4. Group Relative Policy Optimization for Speech Recognition

    eess.AS 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Applying GRPO with rule-based rewards to LLM-based ASR improves WER by up to 18.4% relative and reduces hallucination errors on unseen acoustic conditions.

Pith tools