aiqbench analysis
This paper critically audits major speech datasets, revealing alarmingly low representation of LGBTQIA+ voices (0–1.4%) and exposing the friction between standard AI data collection practices and the participatory values required by marginalized communities. By mapping these practical tensions, the study highlights a significant gap in current training corpora that could lead to biased or non-inclusive speech models if left unaddressed.
Queer inclusion in speech datasets: An audit and taxonomy of practical tensions
arXiv:2609.25491v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In this paper, we examine speech datasets for their inclusion of LGBTQIA+, or queer, voices and provide a taxonomy of tensions to better understand why there is a lack of such voices in current speech technology datasets. Through an audit of six diverse speech datasets, we find that measurable queer representation is low (0-1.4% of speakers) - insufficient for robust disparity measurement. We take this community as a case study to consider what challenges and tensions are associated with collecting speech data from marginalized communities. For comparison, we audit an additional two datasets from the speech sciences that were created by, for, and with the queer community. We note that many customs in speech dataset collection efforts in AI and speech technology research may conflict with values emphasized in participatory approaches with marginalized communities, and provide a taxonomy describing these tensions.
Abstract:In this paper, we examine speech datasets for their inclusion of LGBTQIA+, or queer, voices and provide a taxonomy of tensions to better understand why there is a lack of such voices in current speech technology datasets. Through an audit of six diverse speech datasets, we find that measurable queer representation is low (0-1.4% of speakers) - insufficient for robust disparity measurement. We take this community as a case study to consider what challenges and tensions are associated with collecting speech data from marginalized communities. For comparison, we audit an additional two datasets from the speech sciences that were created by, for, and with the queer community. We note that many customs in speech dataset collection efforts in AI and speech technology research may conflict with values emphasized in participatory approaches with marginalized communities, and provide a taxonomy describing these tensions.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.25491 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.25491v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.25491 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 · 235 words
Related coverage
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · Oct 2, 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026

Research Note: Filtering Subversion-Relevant Information From Pretraining Data Is Feasible
LessWrong · Oct 5, 2026
A Red Line and Oversight Framework for Government AI Contracts
AI Alignment Forum · Jul 18, 2026