Prosodic cues can convey task-relevant information that alters the trajectory and outcome of a task-oriented dialogue, even when the words themselves remain unchanged. Yet existing benchmarks typically evaluate prosodic perception, response appropriateness, and task-oriented dialogue in isolation, making it difficult to test whether prosodic evidence changes downstream decisions.
The paper introduces ContraTalk, a benchmark that tests whether dialogue models truly use acoustic cues or rely on transcript shortcuts. It formalizes cross‑modal disagreement, creates conflict and consistent QA examples, and proposes an Audio Twin representation to expose acoustic evidence to models. Experiments show that while text‑only LLMs perform well on consistent cases, they falter on conflict cases, and AudioLLMs only partially mitigate this issue.
By Yen-Ju Lu, Yuzhe Wang, Yaohan Guan, Xiluo He, Jiarui Hai, Mingrui Liang, Kaavya Chaparala, Thomas Thebaud, Laureano Moro-Velazquez, Najim Dehak, Jesus Villalba
arXiv:2608. 19211v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Human speech is richly expressive, with prosody carrying linguistic and emotional information beyond the lexical content.
By Linkai Peng, Baorian Nuchged
arXiv:2609.38867v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language model (LLM) computer-use agents are typically evaluated with clean written instructions, despite speech being an increasingly popular in...
By Terumi Chiba, Guangzhi Sun, Zheqi Yuan, Chao Zhang
VoiceLongMemEval (VLME) is a new benchmark that tests AI assistants on their ability to remember how users sounded by incorporating paralinguistic metadata—such as emotion labels, prosody descriptors, and voice events—into each conversational turn. The benchmark uses a three‑stage adversarial gate to ensure that models cannot succeed with transcript alone, revealing a significant affect gap: models gain 0.09 to 0.38 accuracy when provided with paralinguistic cues, and audio‑native models outperform standard ASR pipelines in extracting these signals. The dataset and code will be released upon acceptance.
By Ramit Pahwa, Parivesh Priye, Apoorva Beedu
arXiv:2609.33212v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Speaker verification systems achieve high accuracy but provide little account of the acoustic evidence behind their judgments. Making these systems...
By Massa Baali, Sarthak Bisht, Ziyue Qiu, Joseph Konan, Rita Singh, Bhiksha Raj
arXiv:2609.25176v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Real-time voice assistants must reason over evolving requests, execute actions, and follow conversational rules. Qwen-Audio-3.1-Realtime brings these...
By Lujia Bao, Qian Chen, Luyao Cheng, Chong Deng, Yuxiang Kong, Xiangang Li, Xu Li, Jiaqing Liu, Chao-Hong Tan, Haoyu Wang, Wen Wang, Xilou Wang, Junhao Xu, Liang Yi, Binbin Zhang, Qinglin Zhang, Qiquan Zhang
Full‑duplex speech models can listen and speak simultaneously, but they struggle to decide when to speak. Experiments with five model families show that being addressed or encountering silence are reliable triggers, whereas cues like false facts or hazards are not. Even when models answer questions, they rarely challenge false claims or warn about danger, revealing a gap in content understanding and intervention decisions.
By Linkai Peng, Baorian Nuchged, Kaiqi Fu, Yuyang Yao
SteerDuplex is a full‑duplex speech dialogue model that can be steered along attributes such as tone, persona, speaking rate, and voice style in response to user instructions. The authors introduce a taxonomy of text‑ and audio‑based steerability, identify gaps in existing models, and fine‑tune a Moshi‑based model with reinforcement learning to improve timing and response continuity. They also present SteerBench, a benchmark of 390 spoken prompts and 1,067 human‑authored rubrics, showing significant gains in audio‑steering pass rates and interruption handling compared to open baselines.
By Utkarsh Tyagi, Ramaneswaran Selvakumar, Advait Gosai, Sonal Kumar, Nikhil Barhate, Isabell Sagar, Steven Li, Miheer Bavare, Daniel Quigley, Fabiola Tapia Carrillo, Jose M Patron E, Diego Mac\'ias Guti\'errez, Paul Song, Ramani Duraiswami, Dinesh Manocha, Yunzhong He
Full-duplex speech models listen and speak at once, promising always-on assistants. Yet they must also decide when they should speak. Human listeners speak when addressed or when the speaker stops, bu...
VoxReason introduces a listener‑free evaluation framework that measures whether a speech planning system’s delivery choices—such as pitch, energy, rate, pause, emphasis, and stance—are grounded in cited source records before any waveform is generated. The system outputs a source‑cited speaking plan and uses a deterministic verifier to check citation legality, slot agreement, unsupported states, schema validity, and counterfactual locality. Experiments on 1,440 source‑label cases show that simple slot accuracy can be misleading, while a 7B locality‑based repair model significantly improves plan‑slot accuracy and locality, and removing source records sharply reduces the grounded score.
whyItMatters":"The framework provides a concrete, measurable way to ensure that expressive speech systems make source‑licensed planning decisions, addressing a source‑use failure that occurs before audio synthesis."
By Mengzhe Geng
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