pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.17826 · v1 · pith:MLF5ANC3new · submitted 2026-06-16 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.AI

When Multiple Scripts Matter: Evaluating ASR in Clinical Settings

Jean Seo , Minkyu Kim , Jeonguk Lee , Jisoo Jung , Wooseok Han , Eunho Yang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 00:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.AI
keywords automatic speech recognitionclinical ASRmultiscript variabilityevaluation metricsbenchmark datasetorthographic variantstraining script consistency
0
0 comments X

The pith

Multiscript-aware evaluation provides a fairer assessment of ASR quality in clinical settings than single-reference methods.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces MultiClin, a benchmark for clinical automatic speech recognition that includes multiple valid orthographic forms for the same term. Conventional string-matching metrics treat these variants as errors and therefore underestimate true model performance. Experiments across ASR models demonstrate that allowing multiple references produces higher and more accurate scores. The work also shows that training with a single unified script yields better results than mixing scripts, which raises orthographic uncertainty and slows convergence.

Core claim

Multiscript-aware evaluation using multiple orthographic references yields higher and more accurate ASR performance scores in clinical settings compared to conventional single-reference string matching. Script unification during training produces the best model performance, while a balanced 50 percent mapping ratio increases entropy and hinders convergence.

What carries the argument

MultiClin benchmark, which supplies multiple valid orthographic variants per clinical term to support multiscript-aware evaluation instead of single-reference matching.

If this is right

  • ASR performance in clinical domains will register as higher once valid script variants are accepted rather than penalized.
  • Training on unified scripts reduces orthographic uncertainty and improves convergence compared with mixed-script training.
  • Evaluation protocols for any ASR task with orthographic variability should incorporate multiple references to avoid systematic underestimation.
  • Models trained with consistent scripts are expected to generalize better on clinical speech data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same multi-reference design could be applied to other domains that exhibit script or spelling variation, such as historical documents or regional dialects.
  • ASR systems might internally normalize to a canonical script even when input or output allows variants.
  • Future clinical speech datasets should deliberately collect multiple script realizations of each term to support this style of evaluation.

Load-bearing premise

The orthographic variants collected in the dataset are valid and equivalent representations of the same clinical term as they actually appear in real clinical usage.

What would settle it

A direct check of real clinical transcripts showing that the listed variants almost never occur interchangeably would falsify the claim that multiscript evaluation is fairer.

read the original abstract

Automatic speech recognition (ASR) in non-English clinical settings is challenged by multiscript variability, where the same term may appear in multiple valid orthographic forms. Conventional string-matching evaluation metrics often underestimate ASR performance by treating orthographic variants as errors. To address this issue, we introduce MultiClin, a clinical ASR benchmark designed to evaluate robustness to multiscript variability. Experiments across diverse ASR models show that multiscript-aware evaluation provides a fairer assessment of recognition quality than conventional single-reference evaluation. We further investigate the impact of script consistency during training and find that inconsistent script mappings increase orthographic uncertainty and hinder model convergence, with a balanced 50% mapping ratio producing the highest entropy. In contrast, script unification consistently yields the best ASR performance. Our dataset and code are publicly available at: https://github.com/aitrics-ronaldo/Interspeech_MultiClin.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces MultiClin, a clinical ASR benchmark for multiscript variability where the same term may have multiple valid orthographic forms. It claims that conventional single-reference string-matching metrics underestimate ASR performance, that multiscript-aware evaluation is fairer based on experiments across diverse ASR models, and that script unification during training yields the best performance while inconsistent mappings increase orthographic uncertainty and hinder convergence (with a 50% mapping ratio producing highest entropy). Dataset and code are released publicly.

Significance. If the central assumption holds, the work identifies a practical limitation in ASR evaluation for clinical non-English settings and demonstrates how multiscript-aware metrics can provide a more accurate assessment; the public release of the benchmark and code is a clear strength that enables follow-up work.

major comments (2)
  1. [Dataset construction / Experiments] The claim that multiscript-aware evaluation is fairer rests on the premise that MultiClin’s orthographic variants are genuine, interchangeable representations of the same clinical terms as they occur in real speech. No independent validation (expert review, corpus frequency analysis, or inter-annotator agreement on equivalence) is reported in the dataset construction or experiments sections, leaving open the possibility that observed gaps are artifacts of the benchmark rather than evidence of underestimation in practice.
  2. [Experiments] The abstract and experimental results lack any mention of dataset size, number of speakers or utterances, statistical significance tests, or confidence intervals on the reported metric improvements, which are load-bearing for the cross-model claim that multiscript evaluation is consistently fairer.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that a 'balanced 50% mapping ratio producing the highest entropy' but does not define the entropy measure or provide its formula.
  2. [Evaluation metric] Notation for the multiscript-aware metric (e.g., how multiple references are aggregated) is not introduced until the experiments section; an earlier definition would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions where appropriate to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Dataset construction / Experiments] The claim that multiscript-aware evaluation is fairer rests on the premise that MultiClin’s orthographic variants are genuine, interchangeable representations of the same clinical terms as they occur in real speech. No independent validation (expert review, corpus frequency analysis, or inter-annotator agreement on equivalence) is reported in the dataset construction or experiments sections, leaving open the possibility that observed gaps are artifacts of the benchmark rather than evidence of underestimation in practice.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original manuscript does not report independent validation such as expert review or inter-annotator agreement for variant equivalence. The orthographic variants were derived from observed clinical speech data and cross-referenced with standard medical terminology resources that recognize multiple scripts as valid for the same term. To address this, we will expand the dataset construction section with details on variant sourcing and add a limited expert validation study confirming interchangeability in the revised version. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Experiments] The abstract and experimental results lack any mention of dataset size, number of speakers or utterances, statistical significance tests, or confidence intervals on the reported metric improvements, which are load-bearing for the cross-model claim that multiscript evaluation is consistently fairer.

    Authors: We agree that these details should be more prominent. While the full manuscript describes the dataset, we will revise the abstract to include explicit numbers for utterances and speakers, and add statistical significance testing (e.g., paired tests) with confidence intervals for metric differences in the experimental results section of the revision. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical benchmark with independent dataset construction

full rationale

The paper introduces MultiClin as a new clinical ASR benchmark and reports experimental comparisons of single-reference vs. multiscript-aware metrics across ASR models. No mathematical derivations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains appear in the provided text. The central claim rests on empirical metric differences and the dataset's construction, which is externally verifiable via the public release rather than reducing to self-definition or tautology. The validity of orthographic variants is an assumption open to external falsification, not a circular step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work relies on standard domain assumptions about ASR evaluation metrics and the validity of the constructed multiscript dataset; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Conventional string-matching is the appropriate baseline for ASR evaluation.
    The paper positions its multiscript-aware approach against this baseline.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5684 in / 1076 out tokens · 48070 ms · 2026-06-27T00:35:38.879968+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    How- ever, domain-specific terminology and noisy environments con- tinue to challenge clinical ASR

    Introduction Automatic speech recognition (ASR) is increasingly adopted in clinical settings to improve workflow efficiency [1, 2, 3]. How- ever, domain-specific terminology and noisy environments con- tinue to challenge clinical ASR. These difficulties are further amplified in non-English settings, where English medical ter- minology frequently coexists ...

  2. [2]

    When Multiple Scripts Matter: Evaluating ASR in Clinical Settings

    MultiClin dataset We construct theMultiClindataset to reflect real-world clini- cal ASR challenges. Table 1 illustrates an example data corre- sponding to each phase of the annotation process. 2.1. Dataset construction 2.1.1. Collection We collect publicly available doctor–patient dialogues from ACIBench [17], Primock57 [18], and MTS-Dialog [19]. To arXiv...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    We analyze zero- shot inference across diverse architectures and assess the effects of domain-specific fine-tuning under different labeling strate- gies

    Experiments We evaluate ASR performance on theMultiClinbenchmark to quantify the impact of multiscript variability. We analyze zero- shot inference across diverse architectures and assess the effects of domain-specific fine-tuning under different labeling strate- gies. 3.1. Experimental setup 3.1.1. Baseline Models We consider three model families as base...

  4. [4]

    (large-v3,v3-turbo), implemented via faster-whisper 3; (2) Qwen3 ASR[21] (0.6B,1.7B); and (3)Gemini[22] (2.5 Flash, 2.5 Pro), representing frontier multimodal state-of-the-art mod- els. 3.1.2. Inference Configuration We detail the zero-shot inference configurations for our multi- modal baselines to ensure reproducibility. Gemini prompting strategy.We quer...

  5. [5]

    Our experiments show that multiscript-aware criteria provide a fairer assessment than tra- ditional single-label metrics, which often underestimate true model performance

    Conclusion This work introduces theMultiClindataset for fairer evalua- tion in non-English clinical ASR. Our experiments show that multiscript-aware criteria provide a fairer assessment than tra- ditional single-label metrics, which often underestimate true model performance. We further demonstrate that labeling con- sistency in the training data is essen...

  6. [6]

    Gemini is utilized for linguistic re- finement, including grammatical correction and improving the clarity of the initial manuscript

    Generative AI Use Disclosure This work employs Generative AI tools including Google Gem- ini and OpenAI ChatGPT. Gemini is utilized for linguistic re- finement, including grammatical correction and improving the clarity of the initial manuscript. Furthermore, both Gemini and ChatGPT were integrated into our data construction process to generate synthetic ...

  7. [7]

    Enhancing clinical documen- tation with voice processing and large language models: a study on the laos system,

    Y . Xu, H. Jia, M. Wang, J. Feng, X. Xu, H. Wang, J. Chen, Z. Zheng, X. Yang, Y . Shenet al., “Enhancing clinical documen- tation with voice processing and large language models: a study on the laos system,”npj Digital Medicine, 2025

    2025

  8. [8]

    The impact of using ai-powered voice-to-text technology for clinical documentation on quality of care in primary care and outpatient settings: a systematic review,

    A. Alboksmaty, R. Aldakhil, B. W. Hayhoe, H. Ashrafian, A. Darzi, and A.-L. Neves, “The impact of using ai-powered voice-to-text technology for clinical documentation on quality of care in primary care and outpatient settings: a systematic review,” EBiomedicine, vol. 118, 2025

    2025

  9. [9]

    Automatic speech recognition performance for digital scribes: a performance comparison between general-purpose and special- ized models tuned for patient-clinician conversations,

    B. D. Tran, R. Mangu, M. Tai-Seale, J. E. Lafata, and K. Zheng, “Automatic speech recognition performance for digital scribes: a performance comparison between general-purpose and special- ized models tuned for patient-clinician conversations,” inAMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, vol. 2022, 2023, p. 1072

    2022

  10. [10]

    Code-switching in end-to-end automatic speech recognition: A systematic literature review,

    M. T. Agro, A. Kulkarni, K. Kadaoui, Z. Talat, and H. Aldarmaki, “Code-switching in end-to-end automatic speech recognition: A systematic literature review,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.07741

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Code-switching in automatic speech recognition: The issues and future directions,

    M. B. Mustafa, M. A. M. Yusoof, H. K. Khalaf, A. A. R. M. Abushariah, M. L. M. Kiah, H. N. Ting, and S. Muthaiyah, “Code-switching in automatic speech recognition: The issues and future directions,”Applied Sciences, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:252550241

    2022

  12. [12]

    Homophone iden- tification and merging for code-switched speech recog- nition,

    B. M. L. Srivastava and S. Sitaram, “Homophone iden- tification and merging for code-switched speech recog- nition,” inInterspeech, 2018. [Online]. Available: https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:51937752

    2018

  13. [13]

    Effects of dialectal code-switching on speech modules: A study using egyptian arabic broadcast speech,

    S. A. Chowdhury, Y . Samih, M. Eldesouki, and A. M. Ali, “Effects of dialectal code-switching on speech modules: A study using egyptian arabic broadcast speech,” inInterspeech, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 226205255

    2020

  14. [14]

    Zero- shot code-switching asr and tts with multilingual machine speech chain,

    S. Nakayama, A. Tjandra, S. Sakti, and S. Nakamura, “Zero- shot code-switching asr and tts with multilingual machine speech chain,”2019 IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding Workshop (ASRU), pp. 964–971, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:211243868

    2019

  15. [15]

    Dual script e2e framework for multilingual and code-switching asr,

    M. G. Kumar, J. Kuriakose, A. Thyagachandran, A. Seth, L. D. Prasad, S. Jaiswal, A. Prakash, H. Murthyet al., “Dual script e2e framework for multilingual and code-switching asr,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.01400, 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    Towards code- switching asr for end-to-end ctc models,

    K. Li, J. Li, G. Ye, R. Zhao, and Y . Gong, “Towards code- switching asr for end-to-end ctc models,”ICASSP 2019 - 2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp. 6076–6080, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:145994388

    2019

  17. [17]

    Language diarization for semi- supervised bilingual acoustic model training,

    E. Yilmaz, M. McLaren, H. van den Heuvel, and D. A. van Leeuwen, “Language diarization for semi- supervised bilingual acoustic model training,”2017 IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding Work- shop (ASRU), pp. 91–96, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:27208838

    2017

  18. [18]

    Benchmarking evaluation metrics for code-switching automatic speech recognition,

    I. Hamed, A. Hussein, O. Chellah, S. A. Chowdhury, H. Mubarak, S. Sitaram, N. Habash, and A. M. Ali, “Benchmarking evaluation metrics for code-switching automatic speech recognition,”2022 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT), pp. 999–1005, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:254070055

    2022

  19. [19]

    Hike: Hierarchical evaluation framework for korean-english code-switching speech recognition,

    G. Paik, Y . Kim, S. Lee, S. Ahn, and C. Kim, “Hike: Hierarchical evaluation framework for korean-english code-switching speech recognition,”ArXiv, vol. abs/2509.24613, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:281674977

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Transliteration based approaches to improve code-switched speech recognition performance,

    J. Emond, B. Ramabhadran, B. Roark, P. J. Moreno, and M. Ma, “Transliteration based approaches to improve code-switched speech recognition performance,”2018 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT), pp. 448–455, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:61809382

    2018

  21. [21]

    Towards one model to rule all: Multilingual strategy for dialectal code- switching arabic asr,

    S. A. Chowdhury, A. Hussein, A. Abdelali, and A. Ali, “Towards one model to rule all: Multilingual strategy for dialectal code- switching arabic asr,”ArXiv, vol. abs/2105.14779, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:235254012

    work page arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    Multi-reference evaluation for dialectal speech recognition system: A study for egyptian asr,

    A. M. Ali, W. Magdy, and S. Renals, “Multi-reference evaluation for dialectal speech recognition system: A study for egyptian asr,” inANLP@ACL, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:13338981

    2015

  23. [23]

    Aci-bench: a novel ambient clinical intelligence dataset for benchmarking automatic visit note generation,

    W. wai Yim, Y . Fu, A. B. Abacha, N. Snider, T. Lin, and M. Yetisgen, “Aci-bench: a novel ambient clinical intelligence dataset for benchmarking automatic visit note generation,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.02022

    work page arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    PriMock57: A dataset of primary care mock consultations,

    A. Papadopoulos Korfiatis, F. Moramarco, R. Sarac, and A. Savkov, “PriMock57: A dataset of primary care mock consultations,” inProceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), S. Muresan, P. Nakov, and A. Villavicencio, Eds. Dublin, Ireland: Association for Computational Linguistics, May 202...

    2022

  25. [25]

    An empirical study of clinical note generation from doctor- patient encounters,

    A. Ben Abacha, W.-w. Yim, Y . Fan, and T. Lin, “An empirical study of clinical note generation from doctor- patient encounters,” inProceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Dubrovnik, Croatia: Association for Computational Linguistics, May 2023, pp. 2291–2302. [Online]. Available: https://...

    2023

  26. [26]

    Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, T. Xu, G. Brockman, C. McLeavey, and I. Sutskever, “Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision,” inInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2023, pp. 28 492–28 518

    2023

  27. [27]

    Qwen3-ASR Technical Report

    X. Shi, X. Wang, Z. Guo, Y . Wang, P. Zhang, X. Zhang, Z. Guo, H. Hao, Y . Xi, B. Yanget al., “Qwen3-asr technical report,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.21337, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilities

    G. Comanici, E. Bieber, M. Schaekermann, I. Pasupat, N. Sachdeva, I. Dhillon, M. Blistein, O. Ram, D. Zhang, E. Rosen et al., “Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced reasoning, multimodality, long context, and next generation agentic capabil- ities,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06261, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,

    E. J. Hu, yelong shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y . Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, and W. Chen, “LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. [Online]. Available: https: //openreview.net/forum?id=nZeVKeeFYf9

    2022