The paper investigates how to evaluate audio‑language models by separating the use of acoustic evidence from the need to invoke a generative audio model. Using a controlled call‑decision framework, the authors compare policies that rely on transcript labels, encoder outputs from CLAP, AST, or WavLM, and optional calls to generative models such as Qwen2‑Audio, Qwen2.5‑Omni, or MOSS‑Audio. Results on the VocalSound dataset show that while transcript‑only accuracy is low (0.296), encoder‑only 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
The paper introduces a reproducible framework that converts existing text-based tool‑calling benchmarks into audio‑based evaluations using text‑to‑speech, speaker variation, and environmental noise, while preserving original annotations. Experiments on seven omni‑modal models show that performance varies strongly by model and task, with notable gaps between text and voice results. The study also includes a stress test, a reference‑free LLM‑as‑judge protocol, and demonstrates that open‑source judges can match proprietary ones, aiding privacy‑preserving evaluation.
By Md Tahmid Rahman Laskar, Xue-Yong Fu, Seyyed Saeed Sarfjoo, Quinten McNamara, Jonas Robertson, Shashi Bhushan TN
The study evaluates various uncertainty estimation methods—probability-based, sampling-based, self-verification, evidential, and contrastive—across four open-weight audio-language models and five audio QA benchmarks. In multiple-choice settings, first-token probability measures outperform others, achieving a mean AUROC of .740, while open-ended evaluation shows lower accuracy but still predictive uncertainty. Ablation experiments reveal that removing audio evidence significantly degrades error-detection performance, indicating that uncertainty relies more on audio than on question text.
By Aaron Isidore Grace, Weiran Wang
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
The paper introduces a symbiotic architecture that equips large language models with audio‑understanding abilities without fine‑tuning their weights. It uses an injector module to write audio‑conditioned vectors into the LLM’s key‑value cache, allowing the model to act as an audio language model while keeping the backbone unchanged. The approach improves scalability—since injection cost depends on the injector width—and preserves the LLM’s original text performance, outperforming conventional frozen‑LLM methods and approaching fine‑tuned ALM results on audio tasks.
By Yotaro Kubo, Qi Sun, Yujin Tang
arXiv:2609.08899v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Speech deepfakes can mimic a speaker's voice convincingly enough to deceive listeners and automated systems. This has driven strong progress...
By Mengzhe Geng, Yujia Lu, Patrick Littell, Manuela Kunz, Xie Chen