Auditing Generative Audio Calls for Known-Task Audio-LLM Evaluation

arXiv:2608.27817v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Speech and audio LLMs are often evaluated by asking whether a waveform prompt beats an automatic speech recognition (ASR) transcript. For known closed-set tasks, that comparison conflates two factors: access to acoustic evidence and the need to call a generative audio model. We evaluate this distinction as a controlled call-decision problem. For each example, a policy chooses among keeping a transcript label, using encoder evidence from Contrastive Language-Audio Pretraining (CLAP), Audio Spectrogram Transformer (AST), or WavLM, and calling Qwen2-Audio, Qwen2.5-Omni, or MOSS-Audio; the decisive ablation removes all generative actions while keeping the selector and development protocol fixed. On VocalSound, transcripts reach 0.296 accuracy, so waveform information is needed. Yet supervised CLAP and WavLM controls reach 0.850 and 0.854 with no generative audio calls. A selector with generative actions reaches 0.925 accuracy using 12.5% calls, compared with 0.921 for the matched no-call selector (paired difference 0.004; 95% CI [-0.025,0.033]). Agreement and stacking features improve weaker selectors but do not beat the strongest no-call control. For known-task endpoint claims, the relevant quantity is the marginal value of the generative call after transcript and encoder evidence have already been used.

Abstract:Speech and audio LLMs are often evaluated by asking whether a waveform prompt beats an automatic speech recognition (ASR) transcript. For known closed-set tasks, that comparison conflates two factors: access to acoustic evidence and the need to call a generative audio model. We evaluate this distinction as a controlled call-decision problem. For each example, a policy chooses among keeping a transcript label, using encoder evidence from Contrastive Language-Audio Pretraining (CLAP), Audio Spectrogram Transformer (AST), or WavLM, and calling Qwen2-Audio, Qwen2.5-Omni, or MOSS-Audio; the decisive ablation removes all generative actions while keeping the selector and development protocol fixed. On VocalSound, transcripts reach 0.296 accuracy, so waveform information is needed. Yet supervised CLAP and WavLM controls reach 0.850 and 0.854 with no generative audio calls. A selector with generative actions reaches 0.925 accuracy using 12.5% calls, compared with 0.921 for the matched no-call selector (paired difference 0.004; 95% CI [-0.025,0.033]). Agreement and stacking features improve weaker selectors but do not beat the strongest no-call control. For known-task endpoint claims, the relevant quantity is the marginal value of the generative call after transcript and encoder evidence have already been used.

Sound (cs.SD); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Audio and Speech Processing (eess.AS)

arXiv:2608.27817 [cs.SD]

(or arXiv:2608.27817v1 [cs.SD] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.27817 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.

analiza aiqbench

Auditing Generative Audio Calls for Known-Task Audio-LLM Evaluation

Subiecte conexe