Topic Matching in the Wild: Benchmark and Lessons from Real-World ASR Transcripts
cs.CL, cs.AI, cs.LG
Submitted: 2026-08-27
Updated: 2026-08-27
Comments: Accepted at the 11th Workshop on Natural User-generated Text (W-NUT 2026), EMNLP 2026. Camera-ready version. 9 pages, 2 figures, 3 tables
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The gist: In contact centers, real-time agent-assist tools determine, for each of many predefined topics, whether a live customer utterance is relevant and display a coaching card to the agent when it is.
Terminology
Abstract
In contact centers, real-time agent-assist tools determine, for each of many predefined topics, whether a live customer utterance is relevant and display a coaching card to the agent when it is. The input is noisy and challenging: ASR(Automatic Speech Recognition) transcripts of spontaneous phone conversations, which can be unclear, repetitive, and mostly lack punctuation. To systematically study this real-world task, we curate a human-annotated topic-utterance judgments dataset sourced from real call-center transcripts. We compare three types of matchers: a regex-based baseline, zero-shot sentence embedding encoders, and Gemini-based LLM matchers. In addition, two types of topic representations are studied in our benchmark:keyphrases and natural language description. Our empirical experiments highlight the superior performance of lightweight LLM matchers over embedding and regex models when equipped with natural language descriptions.
Related papers
- Exploring Solution Divergence and Its Effect on Large Language Model Problem Solving
- Ishigaki-IDS-Bench: A Benchmark for Generating Information Delivery Specification from BIM Information Requirements
- Subliminal Steering: Stronger Encoding of Hidden Signals
- MedStruct-S: A Benchmark for Key Discovery, Key-Conditioned QA and Semi-Structured Extraction from OCR Clinical Reports
- The End of Transformers? On Challenging Attention and the Rise of Sub-Quadratic Architectures
- Untangling the Mechanisms of Misleading Context in Medical Question Answering