Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

The paper argues that standard word error rate misses how speech recognition errors affect the structured tool calls of voice agents. Its paired evaluation shows that number and negation errors cause large drops in call accuracy, while control edits barely matter, and that task-role labels predict downstream impact better than binary criticality labels. For practitioners building cascaded voice systems, the takeaway is that ASR evaluation should be weighted by downstream task role rather than by raw transcription error rate. The evidence comes from 594 utterances and three ASR front ends, so generalization to other domains and models remains to be tested.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

When Does an ASR Error Matter? Task-Role Diagnostics for Tool-Using Voice Agents

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2610.17619v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In cascaded voice agents, ASR errors can have markedly different downstream consequences: a small transcription error may leave a tool call unchanged or alter its intent or arguments. Conventional word error rate (WER), however, does not capture these differences. We introduce SpeechEvalX, a paired diagnostic protocol that evaluates how task roles affected by ASR errors influence structured tool calls. Controlled edits are matched by source utterance, edit count, and operation, while task-role labels are compared with lexical severity, BERT cosine distance, Semantic-WER, and binary criticality. Across 594 source utterances, joint call accuracy falls from 82.3% with reference transcripts to 71.9-74.9% across three ASR front ends. Number and negation edits cause 21.9-25.7 percentage-point losses, versus 1.4-2.9 points for control edits. Detailed task-role labels improve source-grouped ROC-AUC from 0.73 to 0.78 over binary criticality, showing that downstream impact depends strongly on the task role affected.

Title:When Does an ASR Error Matter? Task-Role Diagnostics for Tool-Using Voice Agents

Abstract:In cascaded voice agents, ASR errors can have markedly different downstream consequences: a small transcription error may leave a tool call unchanged or alter its intent or arguments. Conventional word error rate (WER), however, does not capture these differences. We introduce SpeechEvalX, a paired diagnostic protocol that evaluates how task roles affected by ASR errors influence structured tool calls. Controlled edits are matched by source utterance, edit count, and operation, while task-role labels are compared with lexical severity, BERT cosine distance, Semantic-WER, and binary criticality. Across 594 source utterances, joint call accuracy falls from 82.3% with reference transcripts to 71.9-74.9% across three ASR front ends. Number and negation edits cause 21.9-25.7 percentage-point losses, versus 1.4-2.9 points for control edits. Detailed task-role labels improve source-grouped ROC-AUC from 0.73 to 0.78 over binary criticality, showing that downstream impact depends strongly on the task role affected.

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2610.17619 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2610.17619v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.17619 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 · 250 words

Related coverage