aiqbench analysis
This research reveals that audio language models can be effectively steered by repurposing attention heads originally trained on text-only tasks, demonstrating a significant overlap in how these architectures process different modalities. By identifying and biasing specific heads without retraining, researchers achieved near-perfect speaker selection rates, suggesting that core reasoning capabilities may be shared across distinct model families rather than being modality-specific.
Inherited Heads: Audio language models track speakers with their text backbone's attention, and an attention-mass ranking retrieves a different set
arXiv:2609.14174v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Asked to describe what one of six speakers in a recording talks about, audio language models describe the right one on 6 to 16% of trials, below the 16.7% a guess would give. Adding a fixed bias to the attention logits of a hundred heads, under a tenth of the model's and with no training, redirects the description to whichever speaker we choose, on 90.7% to 99.0% of trials. Those heads are largely not specific to audio. Rank the text-only language model an audio model was built from, or a released model of the same family, on a written version of the task, take its top hundred heads, and carry them over unchanged: they redirect the audio model on 80.8% to 95.0% of trials, with nothing about audio entering the selection. The audio and text head sets share 66 to 74 of 100 where chance would give about 20, and the shared part alone reproduces almost all of the steering. What that does not show is that sharing is what makes the heads work: an equal-sized draw from the same discovered hundred does nearly as well, and none of our three models separates the two explanations. A second finding concerns how such heads are found. Ranking heads by how much attention they place on the segment asked about, as an established score does, or by how much of their attention moves with the question, as a per-head normalised variant does, gives top hundreds that share 69, 37 and 4 heads across our three models. In Ultravox, where they share 4, the established score's heads leave output the judge cannot place on any segment on 69.7% of trials, against 40.0% with no intervention and 1.0% for the normalised variant. That is one arm of six; on the other five the established score steers above a random draw.
Abstract:Asked to describe what one of six speakers in a recording talks about, audio language models describe the right one on 6 to 16% of trials, below the 16.7% a guess would give. Adding a fixed bias to the attention logits of a hundred heads, under a tenth of the model's and with no training, redirects the description to whichever speaker we choose, on 90.7% to 99.0% of trials. Those heads are largely not specific to audio. Rank the text-only language model an audio model was built from, or a released model of the same family, on a written version of the task, take its top hundred heads, and carry them over unchanged: they redirect the audio model on 80.8% to 95.0% of trials, with nothing about audio entering the selection. The audio and text head sets share 66 to 74 of 100 where chance would give about 20, and the shared part alone reproduces almost all of the steering. What that does not show is that sharing is what makes the heads work: an equal-sized draw from the same discovered hundred does nearly as well, and none of our three models separates the two explanations. A second finding concerns how such heads are found. Ranking heads by how much attention they place on the segment asked about, as an established score does, or by how much of their attention moves with the question, as a per-head normalised variant does, gives top hundreds that share 69, 37 and 4 heads across our three models. In Ultravox, where they share 4, the established score's heads leave output the judge cannot place on any segment on 69.7% of trials, against 40.0% with no intervention and 1.0% for the normalised variant. That is one arm of six; on the other five the established score steers above a random draw.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Sound (cs.SD)
arXiv:2609.14174 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.14174v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.14174 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 406 words
