arXiv AI

Voice or Stereotype? Disentangling Acoustic and Content-Based Gender in Speech-to-Speech Models

The study investigates how speech‑to‑speech (S2S) models handle gender, distinguishing between the acoustic voice and the content’s gender cues. Experiments across five models in English, Spanish, and Mandarin show that while the rendered voice remains unbiased, the models consistently attribute speaker gender based on textual content rather than voice. When content and voice disagree, misgendering rates soar to 90%, whereas agreement yields only 2% misgendering.

arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 16

Bias Mitigation in Audio-Enabled LLMs through Adversarial Training and Distillation Methods

The paper presents methods to reduce gender bias in audio‑enabled large language models (AuLLMs) by using adversarial training to unlearn gender perception without harming performance on other tasks. It also introduces a distillation approach that retains gender awareness but aligns responses with a gender‑agnostic teacher unless explicitly prompted. Experiments on three AuLLMs show promising results for gender‑unlearning and partial success for the distillation technique.

By Adnan Al Ali, Jind\v{r}ich Libovick\'y, Anne Lauscher
arXiv Computer Vision
Sep 17

Face-voice Association across LAnguages and Gender (FLAG) 2027 Challenge Evaluation Plan

arXiv:2609.17913v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Face--voice association models may rely on language or gender cues in the voice rather than on speaker-specific voice characteristics, which can lead t...

By Marta Moscati, Swapnil Khandoker, Muhammad Saad Saeed, Shah Nawaz, Fatima Noor, Rohan Kumar Das, Mubashir Noman, Junaid Mir, Muhammad Haroon Yousaf, Khalid Malik, Markus Schedl
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 15

Lost in Translation: Why Lower Bias Scores Don't Mean Fairer Models

The paper investigates whether lower stereotype bias scores in multilingual language models truly indicate greater fairness. By auditing ten open models across eight languages, the authors show that lower average scores often arise from translation artifacts rather than genuine bias reduction, as item‑level correlations between English and translated scores are weak. They also identify pipeline errors that can mask bias signals and provide code to replicate their findings.

By Harsh Kumar