The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
arXiv:2609.13076v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Conversational voice agents have advanced significantly, offering increasingly natural human-machine interactions through both cascaded and end-to-en...
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...
arXiv:2609.35820v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: English-only benchmarks expose only a narrow slice of voice-agent behavior. We introduce $\tau$-Multilingual, extending $\tau$-Voice to Spanish, Braz...
arXiv:2607. 14846v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Current voice AI benchmarks typically evaluate isolated capabilities such as speech intelligibility, word error rate, or text-based dialogue quality, but they rarely test whether systems harness the acoustic information that distinguishes spoken language from its textual representation.
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...
The paper evaluates the use of large language models (LLMs) as judges for assessing conversational voice agents, comparing human judgments with GPT‑4.1 and GPT‑5 across telecom and retail interactions. It examines agreement, metric‑level correlations, and consistency across three evaluation configurations (p0, p1, p2) to determine how reliably LLMs can judge conversational quality and safety. The study finds that LLM‑based evaluation can be effective but its reliability varies by metric and configuration, suggesting a hybrid approach where LLMs handle scalable assessment while humans focus on metrics requiring contextual interpretation.