arXiv AI By Linkai Peng, Baorian Nuchged

Represented but Ignored: A Causal Account of Prosodic Underuse in Audio-Language Models

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2608. 19211v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Human speech is richly expressive, with prosody carrying linguistic and emotional information beyond the lexical content.

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.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 20

Hear2Act: Benchmarking When Prosody Should Change What an Assistant Does

Prosodic cues can convey task-relevant information that alters the trajectory and outcome of a task-oriented dialogue, even when the words themselves remain unchanged. Yet existing benchmarks typically evaluate prosodic perception, response appropriateness, and task-oriented dialogue in isolation, making it difficult to test whether prosodic evidence changes downstream decisions.

arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 27

Can We Read the Mind of an Audio LLM? A Verbalizable, Multilingual Middle-Layer Workspace

The study investigates the internal workings of an audio language model (Qwen3-Omni) by applying a logit lens to its middle layers. It finds that the model’s reasoning about spoken questions becomes legible in words before any token is emitted, revealing language‑agnostic, paralinguistic, and temporally distinct signals that are causally used in the network’s decision process. The authors demonstrate that these signals can be isolated and mapped to specific layers, providing a qualitative account of how the model processes audio input.

By Jiajun Fan, Jingyuan Li, Prashanth Gurunath Shivakumar, Qi Luo, Jia-Hong Huang, M. Maruf, Roger Ren, Yile Gu, Rahul Pandey, Ge Liu, Ivan Bulyko
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 15

How Contrastive Decoding Enhances Large Audio Language Models

The paper evaluates four Contrastive Decoding (CD) strategies for Large Audio Language Models (LALMs) and finds that Audio-Aware Decoding and Audio Contrastive Decoding are the most effective. Their performance varies across models, largely depending on the baseline error profile: CD reliably fixes errors where models incorrectly claim no audio or rely on uncertainty-driven guessing, but struggles with flawed reasoning or confident misassertions. A token-level analysis shows that CD’s suppression targets hesitation markers, explaining its limited impact on confident errors.

By Tzu-Quan Lin, Wei-Ping Huang, Yi-Cheng Lin, Hung-yi Lee
arXiv AI
Sep 18

Music Hallucination in Audio-Language Models: A Hierarchical Formulation and Empirical Study

The paper presents the first music‑specific, layer‑wise empirical study of hallucination in audio‑language models, framing it as a hierarchical perceptual grounding failure across five layers: sound events, temporal properties, tonal attributes, style, and emotion. It introduces MuseDiag, a diagnostic framework that evaluates nine models and finds universal vocal misperception, significant tonal perception differences, and identifies Audio‑Flamingo‑3 as the most stable model. The study also proposes two training‑free mitigation methods, ADD‑M and TPA, which reduce hallucination in probing but show variable effectiveness in free‑form generation, highlighting the need for multi‑paradigm evaluation.

By Yu Liu, Jiahui Liu, Zhilin Liu, Cong Cao, Fangfang Yuan, Yuling Yang, Pin Xu, Yanbing Liu