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:2609.14174v1 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...
By Bojro Das
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...
By Song-ha Jo, Sehyun Lee, Soyoon Kim, Jaesik Choi, Sanghyuk Choi
The paper investigates how Audio Large Language Models (Audio LLMs) actually use audio input to determine answers, rather than relying on textual cues. It finds that replacing audio with silence or unrelated audio degrades performance more after training than before, that acoustic information shapes representations in early-to-middle layers and influences final predictions in middle-to-late layers, and that training impacts specific layer bands most strongly. These observations offer a mechanistic view of how training enhances the use of acoustic evidence in Audio LLMs.
By Hyebin Cho, Suho Yoo, Jihoo Jung, Joon Son Chung
The study applies causal tracing to large audio language models (LALMs) to uncover how they fuse acoustic and textual information. Layer‑wise analysis reveals distinct fusion strategies—progressive integration in DeSTA versus abrupt late‑stage fusion in Qwen—while token‑wise analysis identifies the final sequence token as an informational bottleneck that decisively retrieves audio content. Additionally, an attention‑like query mechanism at intermediate tokens is observed, prompting the model to pull task‑relevant audio context.
By Wei-Chih Chen, Chien-yu Huang, Hung-yi Lee
The paper introduces IMAVB, a 500‑clip benchmark that tests whether omnimodal large language models can detect when a textual premise contradicts their visual or audio input. Experiments on eight open‑source models and Gemini 3.1 Pro reveal a Representation‑Action Gap: internal states encode mismatches, yet the models rarely reject false premises, exhibiting under‑rejection or over‑rejection. A probe‑guided logit adjustment improves rejection behavior, suggesting the main bottleneck is in translating perception to action rather than in perception itself.
By Trung Nguyen Quang, Yiming Gao, Fanyi Pu, Kaichen Zhang, Shuo Sun, Ziwei Liu