REVIEW 1 cited by
Mind the Gap! Static and Interactive Evaluations of Large Audio Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
abstract
As AI chatbots become ubiquitous, voice interaction presents a compelling way to enable rapid, high-bandwidth communication for both semantic and social signals. This has driven research into Large Audio Models (LAMs) to power voice-native experiences. However, aligning LAM development with user goals requires a clear understanding of user needs and preferences to establish reliable progress metrics. This study addresses these challenges by introducing an interactive approach to evaluate LAMs and collecting 7,500 LAM interactions from 484 participants. Through topic modeling of user queries, we identify primary use cases for audio interfaces. We then analyze user preference rankings and qualitative feedback to determine which models best align with user needs. Finally, we evaluate how static benchmarks predict interactive performance - our analysis reveals no individual benchmark strongly correlates with interactive results ($\tau \leq 0.33$ for all benchmarks). While combining multiple coarse-grained features yields modest predictive power ($R^2$=$0.30$), only two out of twenty datasets on spoken question answering and age prediction show significantly positive correlations. This suggests a clear need to develop LAM evaluations that better correlate with user preferences.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
AudioJudge: Understanding What Works in Large Audio Model Based Speech Evaluation
With prompt engineering (audio concatenation plus in-context examples), large audio models rank speech synthesis systems in line with human preferences, reaching up to 0.91 Spearman correlation.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.