Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This study provides a critical technical comparison between encoder-based metrics like BERTScore and decoder-based generative LLMs for evaluating Automatic Speech Recognition systems. The findings indicate that while encoder methods remain highly competitive, generative models offer distinct advantages in hypothesis selection and improving the interpretability of evaluation errors. For researchers optimizing ASR pipelines, this work clarifies the specific architectural strengths required to bridge the gap between traditional Word Error Rate metrics and semantic similarity judgments.
Sources coveringarXiv, AI Alignment Forum, Quantum Zeitgeist, LessWrong
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Generative vs. Encoder Large Language Models for ASR Evaluation: A Comparative Study

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2608.25574v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) is typically evaluated using Word Error Rate (WER), which poorly reflects semantic similarity. While embedding-based metrics correlate better with human judgments, the respective roles of encoder and decoder-based Large Language Models (LLMs) remain underexplored. This paper presents a comparative study of both families for ASR evaluation. We analyze BERTScore and SemDist across different LLMs, layers, and pooling strategies, showing that both metrics can achieve strong correlation with human judgments when properly configured. For decoder models, we investigate generative LLMs in two settings: pairwise hypothesis selection via prompting and direct qualitative error classification. Our results show that encoder-based metrics remain highly competitive, while generative LLMs perform strongly in hypothesis comparison and improve the interpretability of ASR evaluation.

Title:Generative vs. Encoder Large Language Models for ASR Evaluation: A Comparative Study

Abstract:Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) is typically evaluated using Word Error Rate (WER), which poorly reflects semantic similarity. While embedding-based metrics correlate better with human judgments, the respective roles of encoder and decoder-based Large Language Models (LLMs) remain underexplored. This paper presents a comparative study of both families for ASR evaluation. We analyze BERTScore and SemDist across different LLMs, layers, and pooling strategies, showing that both metrics can achieve strong correlation with human judgments when properly configured. For decoder models, we investigate generative LLMs in two settings: pairwise hypothesis selection via prompting and direct qualitative error classification. Our results show that encoder-based metrics remain highly competitive, while generative LLMs perform strongly in hypothesis comparison and improve the interpretability of ASR evaluation.

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2608.25574 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2608.25574v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.25574 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 227 words

Related coverage