Skip to content

Where Does the Sound Go? Tracing Acoustic Information Loss in Audio-Conditioned LLMs

Sep 2026 · 0 citations · 45 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

LogitLens analyses and a targeted LM head intervention support the conclusion that acoustic underuse is not explained solely by encoder-side information loss and that readout alignment can be a dominant bottleneck.

Abstract

Audio-conditioned language models often underuse acoustic cues such as prosody, emotion, and non-speech sounds, raising the question of whether ASR-supervised frontends discard this information before it reaches the LM. We test whether the frontend is responsible by comparing Whisper-Tiny and Whisper-Small with EnCodec, DAC-VAE, and WavTokenizer in a shared Qwen3.5-4B audio-LM pipeline on ASR, emotion recognition, and sound captioning. Encoder replacement alone does not resolve this underuse: Whisper variants remain strongest overall, including on emotion and environmental sound captioning. To localize the failure, we trace task-relevant information through the encoder, projector, LM layers, and LM head. Linear probes and geometric analyses show that discriminative acoustic structure remains recoverable at the final LM layer, even when MCQA accuracy trails probe accuracy by up to 83 points. Because the answer format and decoding procedure are controlled, this task-dependent gap points to content-specific readout failure rather than generic format bias. LogitLens analyses and a targeted LM head intervention support the conclusion that acoustic underuse is not explained solely by encoder-side information loss and that readout alignment can be a dominant bottleneck.

View source

Similar papers

#artificial intelligence Preprint Sep 2026

Heard but Not Heeded: Paralinguistic Information Encoding and Loss in Audio-Language Models

A mechanistic analysis of paralinguistic information in four open source models using the Expresso dataset with controlled speaking styles identifies a gap between what models encode and what they use, highlighting a key limitation in current audio language models.

Bhuvan Koduru, Dareen Alharthi, Rita Singh et al. · 3 citations · ⚡1
#machine learning Preprint Sep 2026

What Did the MLLM Hear? Token-Level Spectro-Temporal Grounding for Audio MLLM Explainability

STAG is introduced, to the authors' knowledge the first post-hoc framework for token-level spectro-temporal grounding of captions generated by audio-based MLLMs, and provides behavioral support for the faithfulness and selectivity of the explanations.

Lucia Cascone, V. Fraenza, Michele Nappi et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Sep 2026

Candor-LR: A Dyadic Conversational Dataset for Audio-Visual Speech Recognition

Candor-LR is introduced, a conversational benchmark derived from the CANDOR corpus of 1,656 natural dyadic videoconferences that significantly improves cross-domain robustness under both clean and noisy conditions, as its realistic conversational data captures broader audio-video features.

Rishabh Jain, A. Papadopoulos, Zhao-Feng Lin et al. · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Sep 2026

What Survives the Codec Shift: Pooled No-Vocals Residuals for Speech Deepfake Detection

The transition from vocoder-based to neural-codec speech synthesis makes generalization more difficult for speech deepfake detectors, particularly those relying on speech-oriented representations. It remains unclear which acoustic representations retain discriminative information when the generation mechanism changes....

Jia-Jun Xu, Meng-Lu Li, Xiao-Ping Zhang · 0 citations

Related blog posts

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.