arXiv AI By Haoyue Liu, Zhichao Wang, Ye Chen, Haonan Deng, Xiaoying Tang

Do SpeechLMs Hear Their Own Opinions? Diagnosing and Mitigating Previous-Belief Contamination in Streaming Emotion Understanding

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper investigates how streaming emotion recognition models can be misled by their own prior predictions, a problem termed previous-belief contamination (PBC). Using a counterfactual diagnostic on CREMA-D-Stream, the authors show that feeding a model’s previous emotion label into its current prediction can drastically lower accuracy and flip many predictions, with the effect varying by label. To mitigate PBC, they propose EmoUpdate, a training‑free framework that isolates current audio perception from historical context through a prior‑blind firewall, a causal belief filter, and a decontamination operator, achieving significant gains across multiple SpeechLMs and benchmarks.

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 AI.

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 15

Omni-Streaming Thinking

arXiv:2609.15128v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Streaming omni-modal models must decide what and when to answer from the video chunks and synchronized audio observed so far. Visual cues often support...

By Enjun Du, Siyi Liu, Ziyu Zheng, Jingyu Li, Yiwen Guo, Yongqi Zhang, Difan Zou
arXiv AI
Oct 2

Multi-Party Backchannel Prediction: a Diagnosis, a Benchmark, and a Ceiling

The paper introduces a multi‑party backchannel prediction benchmark built from the AMI meeting corpus, featuring 682 masked‑listener views, 190 speakers, and 18,697 backchannel events. A state‑of‑the‑art dyadic model performs at chance when applied zero‑shot to meetings, but its frozen acoustic features are still informative, and retraining improves performance to an AUROC of 0.751. The study reveals that listener conditioning helps only for listeners seen during training, that speaker identity is entangled with useful cues, and that backchannel rates vary significantly across individuals, prompting the authors to report both AUROC and event‑F1 metrics. whyItMatters":"The benchmark and evaluation tools provide a standardized, person‑disjoint testbed for advancing multi‑party backchannel prediction research."

By Mohammed Hafsati, Ahmed Loughzali
arXiv AI
Jun 10

What Do Deepfake Speech Detectors Actually Hear?

arXiv:2606. 10912v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Deepfake speech detectors often output a single score without explaining why an audio sample is flagged, where in the signal the evidence lies, or what cues drive the decision.

By Vojt\v{e}ch Stan\v{e}k, Veronika Jirmusov\'a, Anton Firc, Kamil Malinka, Jakub Re\v{s}, Martin Pere\v{s}\'ini