arXiv Computation and Language

Text Scores Do Not Establish Performance on Lexically Non-Diagnostic Speech Tasks: A Qwen2-Audio Quantization Case Study

The study evaluates Qwen2‑Audio‑7B‑Instruct quantization at mixed 4/8‑bit settings on English‑to‑German translation and emotion recognition tasks. BLEU and chrF scores relative to FP16 show no significant difference, yet absolute accuracy on RAVDESS drops by 3.71% for 6‑bit and 1.17% for 7‑bit, with the 6‑bit interval statistically significant. The results demonstrate that text‑output metrics alone cannot confirm performance preservation on speech tasks where labels cannot be inferred from transcripts.

arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 24

Text Scores Can Miss Waveform Use: A Qwen2-Audio Quantization Case Study

The paper presents a new evaluation protocol for post‑training quantization of speech language models that separates lexical output, transcript‑insufficient endpoints, and packed implementations. In a Qwen2‑Audio case study, a 6‑bit allocation selected for translation improves chrF scores but degrades emotion recognition, while uniform and front‑layer controls perform better on emotion tasks. Similar patterns hold at 7 bits, and a 4‑bit study shows consistent emotion deficits across all low‑bit allocations, with no advantage for the selected scheme. The study highlights a precision‑dependent mismatch between lexical output, waveform‑dependent behavior, and nominal precision, without claiming a general failure of low‑bit models or a deployment benefit for the selected allocation.

By Mengzhe Geng, Jinxi Jin, Junhao Xu
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 31

SURE-Challenge: Evaluating Speech Evidence Before Speech-LLM Generation

The paper introduces the Speech-Unsupported Rejection Evaluation Challenge (SURE‑Challenge), a benchmark designed to test whether speech‑LLMs should accept or reject audio inputs before generating answers. Using LibriSpeech‑derived transcriptions paired with first‑word question answering, the authors evaluate various noise and silence conditions, and compare a simple energy‑plus‑Whisper‑score rule against a Qwen2‑Audio front‑end. On a 474‑row test set, the rule rejects 196 of 204 unsupported inputs while preserving accuracy on supported data, revealing a pre‑generation error mode that answer‑only scoring misses.

By Mengzhe Geng
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 28

Interpretable, Fairly Evaluated Automated L2 Speaking Assessment that Beats the Single-Human Ceiling and Why Pause Encoding Does Not Change LLM Fluency Scores

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.

By Eichi Uehara
arXiv AI
Oct 16

Qwen-Audio-Jev: A Unified Interface for Audio Decisions

Qwen-Audio-Jev extends Qwen-Audio-3.1-ASR-Flash-Next with a dedicated decision head that unifies selection, binary judgment, and scoring into three primitives: CHOICE, NOUL, and SCORE. The model delivers competitive accuracies and error rates across 18 labeled configurations, achieving 78.70% on MMAU-mini, 84.06% on MMSU, 6.50% equal error rate on VoxCeleb1-O, and a 0.1062 normalized MAE on NISQA. Compared to its predecessor, Qwen-Audio-Jev offers roughly a 20‑fold inference speedup, enabling efficient high‑throughput audio decision‑making for tasks such as large‑scale screening, speaker verification, and automated quality assessment.

By Ying Fang, Zhifu Gao, Qing Gu, Jiajun He, Kangqi Jing, Xiangang Li, Yu Pu, Wupeng Wang
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 15

Auditing Generative Audio Calls for Known-Task Audio-LLM Evaluatio

The paper investigates how to evaluate generative audio large language models (Audio‑LLMs) on known closed‑set tasks by separating the decision to call a generative model from the use of acoustic evidence. It introduces a controlled call‑decision framework where a policy can choose between a transcript label, encoder evidence from CLAP, AST, or WavLM, or a generative call to Qwen2‑Audio, Qwen2.5‑Omni, or MOSS‑Audio, and measures the impact of generative calls on accuracy. Results on the VocalSound dataset show that while transcript‑only accuracy is low (0.296), encoder‑based controls achieve high accuracy (≈0.85) without any generative calls, and adding generative calls yields only a marginal improvement (0.925 vs. 0.921).

By Mengzhe Geng