arXiv:2609.14817v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In Yor\`ub\'a, pitch alone separates \d{o}k\d{o} (husband, Mid), \d{o}k\d{\`o} (vehicle, Low), and \d{o}k\d{\'o} (hoe, High) -- the diacritics ARE the...
arXiv:2609.17548v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Myovox, from myo (muscle) and vox (voice), decodes open-vocabulary English text from 31-channel surface electromyography (sEMG) recorded from the muscl...
arXiv:2609.08899v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Speech deepfakes can mimic a speaker's voice convincingly enough to deceive listeners and automated systems. This has driven strong progress...
arXiv:2609.18533v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems exhibit unequal error rates across speaker groups, motivating interventions on their internal representation...
The paper presents an interpretable, fair, and accurately benchmarked automated system for assessing second‑language English speaking. Using a hybrid of feature‑based speech‑timing metrics and a large language model (LLM) fluency judgment, the system achieves a Spearman correlation of 0.818 with the ICNALE Global Rating Archive, outperforming 81 % of trained human raters. A controlled study shows that encoding pauses into the LLM prompt does not meaningfully affect fluency scores, indicating that the system’s fluency signal derives from measurable speech‑timing features.
We benchmark eleven audio classification methods: five task-aware closed-set LLMs (four Gemini models plus open-weight Kimi-Audio-7B-Instruct), four fixed-vocabulary taggers (YAMNet, PANNs, Whisper-AT, and SSLAM), a zero-shot audio-text model (CLAP), and an audio-grounded LLM (BAT). We evaluate them on a closed-set sound-source identification task over 2,242 clips spanning 23 fine-grained classes and 11 categories.
arXiv:2607. 07985v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We report the empirical reliability of Gemini models as audio judges that score full-duplex agent conversations directly from the raw stereo waveform, tested across three models in the Gemini family: 2.
arXiv:2609.05871v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Audio-conditioned language models often underuse acoustic cues such as prosody, emotion, and non-speech sounds, raising the question of whether ASR-s...
Automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems exhibit unequal error rates across speaker groups, motivating interventions on their internal representations. We ask whether speaker-linked attributes that...
arXiv:2609.13150v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reference-free quality predictors such as UTMOS, DNSMOS and SCOREQ are the de facto automatic evaluators for text-to-speech (TTS) and are increasingl...
arXiv:2609.14174v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Asked to describe what one of six speakers in a recording talks about, audio language models describe the right one on 6 to 16% of trials, below the 16...
The study evaluates audio provenance attribution systems, showing that high clean‑benchmark accuracy does not translate to robustness after codec compression. Using a prospectively registered protocol, the authors measured closed‑set attribution performance on two corpora after single‑stage codec transport, finding significant degradation—up to 70.3 Macro‑F1 points for WavLM‑Base+ and 61.0 for W2V2‑BERT 2.0—depending on codec settings and representation. The results demonstrate that clean accuracy alone cannot guarantee deployment robustness across different codecs and representations.