arXiv Machine Learning By Yuanhao Chen, Peter Chin

Do Audio Language Models Hear and Read Distinctive Features Alike?

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

The study examines whether audio language models encode distinctive phonetic features similarly when processing spoken versus written input. By comparing mean representations of minimal phoneme pairs across six models, seven features, and 15 languages, the authors find that only voicing in the Qwen2.5-Omni models consistently shows a shared directional representation after correcting for multiple tests. The results suggest that the model family, rather than its size, determines how phonetic features are represented across audio and text streams.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 24

Do Audio Language Models Hear and Read Distinctive Features Alike?

The paper investigates whether audio language models encode phonetic features similarly when processing spoken versus written input. By comparing mean representations of minimal phoneme pairs across six models, seven features, and 15 languages, the study finds that only voicing in two Qwen2.5-Omni models shows a significant shared direction, and that the model family—not size—determines feature representation. The analysis uses cosine similarity against a random-pair reference to assess alignment across modalities.

arXiv AI
Sep 2

Heard but Not Heeded: Paralinguistic Information Encoding and Loss in Audio-Language Models

The paper investigates whether audio‑language models capture paralinguistic cues beyond spoken content. Using the Expresso dataset and four open‑source models, the authors trace how speaking style information is encoded in the late layers of the audio encoder but is degraded before reaching the final output. They find that some models are content‑driven while others are acoustic‑driven, revealing a gap between what is encoded and what is utilized in current audio‑language models.

By Bhuvan Koduru, Dareen Safar B Alharthi, Rita Singh, Bhiksha Raj
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 4

Beyond Decodability: Reconstructing Language Model Representations with an Encoding Probe

The paper introduces an Encoding Probe that reconstructs language model representations using interpretable features, addressing limitations of traditional decoding probes such as incomparable feature contributions and correlation effects. It evaluates this approach on text and speech transformer models, examining features from acoustics, phonetics, syntax, lexicon, and speaker identity. Findings reveal that speaker-related effects vary with training objectives and datasets, while syntactic and lexical features independently contribute to reconstruction, offering a complementary perspective on model interpretation.

By Gaofei Shen, Martijn Bentum, Tomas O. Lentz, Afra Alishahi, Grzegorz Chrupa{\l}a