DialectSafe: Bridging the ASR Gap
David Romero, Euruviel Marquez, Leonardo Torres y Roberto Balmes
DialectSafe: A Safety Audit of Multimodal ASR in the Global South addresses the critical issue of "Digital Deafness," where state-of-the-art automatic speech recognition systems fail systematically on peripheral, hyper-rural dialects underrepresented in standard metropolitan benchmarks. Focusing on rural Yucatecan Spanish—a variety heavily shaped by Mayan language contact—this project implements a rigorous, 100% reproducible evaluation pipeline running under a deterministic environment with a fixed random seed of 42 and zero temperature parameters. By auditing 15 field audio samples across two paradigms, the benchmark directly compares the transcription outputs of OpenAI's Whisper, a model unexposed to local indigenous speech dynamics, against Google’s advanced multimodal Gemini 2.5 Flash via OpenRouter. Rather than relying on aggregate metrics alone, the framework leverages advanced alignment processing to conduct a granular qualitative analysis, categorizing speech recognition failures into deletions, substitutions, and insertions. The evaluation exposes a dangerous upstream safety failure dubbed the "Domino Effect," wherein highly corrupted ASR text propagates into downstream Large Language Models, forcing standard AI assistants to generate confident, speculative, or completely irrelevant advice for requests the user never actually articulated. Ultimately, DialectSafe establishes a formal pre-deployment safety audit standard for Global South voice technologies, demonstrating that AI alignment and safety boundaries are ineffective if the system remains structurally incapable of hearing and respecting the cultural and linguistic reality of marginalized communities.
Not strictly AI SafetyNot strictly AI Safety
The safety framing is real but underdeveloped. One paragraph mapping the failure modes to concrete harm scenarios, e.g., a rural speaker denied access to a public service because of a silent transcription error. This would make the connection explicit and strengthen the submission significantly.
Undersold contribution
The paper's most valuable contribution is the field data collection itself: real audio from rural Yucatecan and Mayan-contact speakers with human ground truth. This is rare and hard to do, and it is barely mentioned. It should be front and center in the abstract and conclusion.
Corpus size
N=15 is acknowledged as a limitation. Expanding it is the single most impactful next step, and the team already has the methodology and community access to do it.
The issue is very interesting and of unquestionable social relevance. The approach taken is appropriate. The authors state that they are dealing with Yucatec Maya and rural Spanish-Maya. However, their corpus of analysis indicates that it is Wixárika, which is known as Huichol. The Wixárika are not from Yucatán, do not speak Maya, and are from the Sierra de Nayarit and Jalisco (the authors state: ‘Oral traditions and indigenous legends: Yoremes fire myth, Wixárika dawn cosmogony’). Mayan and Wixárika are not even linguistically related. Furthermore, with regard to the oral tradition concerning the appearance of the patron saint Akatekos, it appears that this originates not from Yucatán, but from Guatemala. This seriously undermines the credibility of the work because it calls into question the methodological foundation of the project. In other words, the data the study claims to have used is not what was actually used: a corpus of Maya conversation, specifically rural Spanish-Maya, but containing conversations in other languages: Wixárika and Akatekos. Perhaps the problem was an oversight; it is an unfortunate situation because I believe it could have been an excellent contribution.
- The problem this paper studies is very important.
- The introduction is missing some context. For example, how much these systems are actually being used in these contexts.
- It's not clear how or when the dataset was built. Was it generated during the hackathon? Who participated in collecting the audio? If people outside the team were involved, was there any compensation? How many people? Is there diversity in terms of gender, region, etc.?
- The explanation is quite fragmented. Code is described in the text (which shouldn't be done in an academic paper). It's recommended to present the methodology without describing the code itself. Instead of explaining the code, it would help to give more information about the metrics: what they mean, how they're calculated, and how they should be interpreted.
DialectSafe documents a concrete and urgent exclusion problem. Neither evaluated model is fit for deployment in rural communities (in this case, Yucatán), and the distinction between digital deafness (Whisper's silent omissions) and insertion cascades (Gemini's massive hallucinations) is a useful diagnostic framework for voice pipeline designers.
The Appendix C with real hallucination examples is one of the most effective elements for communicating risk to non-technical audiences. To strengthen the work, the most important next steps are expanding the corpus to at least 50 audio samples to enable statistical significance testing, implementing a metric that does not unfairly penalize Maya-language output when references are in Spanish, and adding the language-forced Whisper baseline (language='es') that the team identifies as future work. The proposed WER < 0.20 deployment threshold is a concrete policy contribution worth developing further.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) DialectSafe: Bridging the ASR Gap
},
author={
David Romero, Euruviel Marquez, Leonardo Torres y Roberto Balmes
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


