Despite significant advances in automatic speech recognition (ASR) accuracy, challenges remain. Naturally occurring conversation often involves multiple overlapping speakers, of different ages, accents and genders, as well as noisy environments and suboptimal audio recording equipment, all of which reduce ASR accuracy. In this study, we evaluate the accuracy of state of the art open source ASR systems across diverse conversational speech datasets, examining the impact of audio and speaker characteristics on WER. We then explore the potential of ASR ensembling and post-ASR correction methods to improve transcription accuracy. Our findings emphasize the need for robust error correction techniques and of continuing to address demographic biases to enhance ASR performance and inclusivity.

Large vision language models (VLMs) increasingly claim reasoning skills, yet current benchmarks evaluate them in single-turn or question answering settings. However, grounding is an interactive process in which people gradually develop shared understanding through ongoing communication. We introduce a four-metric suite (grounding efficiency, content alignment, lexical adaptation, and human-likeness) to systematically evaluate VLM performance in interactive grounding contexts. We deploy the suite on 150 self-play sessions of interactive referential games between three proprietary VLMs and compare them with human dyads. All three models diverge from human patterns on at least three metrics, while GPT4o-mini is the closest overall. We find that (i) task success scores do not indicate successful grounding and (ii) high image-utterance alignment does not necessarily predict task success. Our metric suite and findings offer a framework for future research on VLM grounding.

Evaluating sign language generation is often done through back-translation, where generated signs are first recognized back to text and then compared to a reference using text-based metrics. However, this two-step evaluation pipeline introduces ambiguity: it not only fails to capture the multimodal nature of sign language—such as facial expressions, spatial grammar, and prosody—but also makes it hard to pinpoint whether evaluation errors come from sign generation model or the translation system used to assess it. In this work, we propose SiLVERScore, a novel semantically-aware embedding-based evaluation metric that assesses sign language generation in a joint embedding space. Our contributions include: (1) identifying limitations of existing metrics, (2) introducing SiLVERScore for semantically-aware evaluation, (3) demonstrating its robustness to semantic and prosodic variations, and (4) exploring generalization challenges across datasets. On PHOENIX-14T and CSL-Daily datasets, SiLVERScore achieves near-perfect discrimination between correct and random pairs (ROC AUC = 0.99, overlap < 7%), substantially outperforming traditional metrics.