pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.08425 · v2 · pith:6YDNRK2Onew · submitted 2026-06-07 · 💻 cs.SD · cs.CL· eess.AS

TinyGiantALM: A Compact Audio-Language Model for Intent-Aware Reasoning under Resource Constraints

Vinh-Thuan Ly This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 18:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SD cs.CLeess.AS
keywords audio-language modelintent-aware reasoningresource constraintsfeature refinementmixed-modalityMMAR benchmarkcompact modelzero-shot accuracy
0
0 comments X

The pith

A 1.5B audio-language model outperforms 7B-13B baselines on mixed-modality reasoning via intent-aware filtering.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents TinyGiantALM as a compact 1.5 billion parameter alternative to massive audio-language models that are impractical for resource-limited devices. It introduces an Instruction-Aware Feature Refinement framework that incorporates a Query-guided Projector and Semantic Gating to selectively filter acoustic signals according to the user's stated intent. On the MMAR benchmark this yields 46.4 percent zero-shot accuracy, exceeding several larger baselines and models up to eight times its size specifically when disentangling mixed-modality inputs. The work therefore argues that targeted architectural choices can deliver usable audio reasoning performance without relying on brute-force increases in model scale. This matters for bringing such capabilities to edge hardware where compute and memory are strictly limited.

Core claim

TinyGiantALM is a 1.5B efficiency-oriented audio-language model that uses an Instruction-Aware Feature Refinement framework, built around a Query-guided Projector and Semantic Gating, to filter acoustic signals according to user intent. On the MMAR benchmark the model records 46.4 percent zero-shot accuracy, outperforming 7B-13B baselines and models up to 8 times larger in mixed-modality disentangling, while still trailing 30B+ models on logical narrative tasks and showing trade-offs in overly dense or spatial scenes.

What carries the argument

The Instruction-Aware Feature Refinement framework, which employs a Query-guided Projector and Semantic Gating to filter acoustic signals based on user intent.

If this is right

  • Audio reasoning models become deployable in resource-constrained environments without requiring massive parameter counts.
  • Architectural precision can allow smaller models to exceed the performance of models several times larger when handling mixed-modality inputs.
  • A practical pathway exists toward robust perception capabilities on edge-friendly scales.
  • Performance gaps remain in logical narrative reasoning relative to models of 30B parameters and above.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same intent-guided filtering idea could be tested in other multimodal settings such as vision-language models to reduce compute needs.
  • Direct measurement of latency and memory use on actual edge devices would be needed to confirm the claimed deployment advantages.
  • Dynamic intent changes during a single audio stream might be handled by extending the gating mechanism to update mid-inference.

Load-bearing premise

The Query-guided Projector and Semantic Gating components filter acoustic signals according to user intent in a manner that directly produces the observed accuracy improvements.

What would settle it

An ablation study that removes or disables the Query-guided Projector and Semantic Gating and then re-evaluates zero-shot accuracy on the MMAR benchmark to check whether performance remains unchanged.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.08425 by Vinh-Thuan Ly.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Proposed TinyGiantALM architecture. (1) Triple-stream frontend (Whisper, HTS-AT, CLAP) extracts multi-scale features. (2) E-Branchformer blocks encode local-global contexts via CGMLP and Self-Attention. (3) A User Intent query drives Cross-Attention, while a CLAP-based gate (g) modulates features via affine scaling (0.5 · g + 0.5) before LLM injection for CoT reasoning. 4.2. Implementation Details Experime… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Zero-shot MMAR Accuracy vs. Model Size. maintains a robust 45.5%, outperforming these baselines by over +36% despite being 5×–8× smaller. Overall, as illus￾trated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Current advancements in Audio Reasoning rely on massive Large Audio-Language Models (LALMs), hindering deployment in resource-constrained environments. We introduce TinyGiantALM, a compact 1.5B efficiency-oriented alternative. Instead of brute-force scaling, we propose an Instruction-Aware Feature Refinement framework using a Query-guided Projector and Semantic Gating to filter acoustic signals based on user intent. On the MMAR benchmark, TinyGiantALM achieves 46.4% zero-shot accuracy, significantly outperforming 7B-13B baselines. While a reasoning gap in logical narrative remains versus 30B+ models and certain trade-offs exist in overly dense or spatial scenes, our approach notably surpasses models up to 8x larger in disentangling mixed-modality environments. These findings demonstrate that architectural precision offers a tangible pathway to secure robust perception capabilities on edge-friendly scales.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces TinyGiantALM, a 1.5B-parameter compact audio-language model for resource-constrained settings. It proposes an Instruction-Aware Feature Refinement framework with a Query-guided Projector and Semantic Gating to filter acoustic signals based on user intent. On the MMAR benchmark, it reports 46.4% zero-shot accuracy, outperforming 7B-13B baselines and models up to 8x larger in mixed-modality disentanglement, while noting remaining gaps versus 30B+ models in logical narrative reasoning and trade-offs in dense/spatial scenes.

Significance. If the performance deltas can be rigorously attributed to the proposed modules, the result would demonstrate that targeted architectural precision can yield efficient models competitive with much larger ones in audio reasoning tasks, supporting deployment in edge environments without brute-force scaling.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Results] Abstract / Results: The headline claim attributes the 46.4% MMAR accuracy and outperformance of larger models specifically to the Query-guided Projector and Semantic Gating within the Instruction-Aware Feature Refinement framework, yet no ablation studies, removal experiments, or controls are described that hold all other factors (base architecture, training data, projector design) fixed while measuring the modules' isolated contribution.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The comparisons to 7B-13B baselines and 8x-larger models report no error bars, standard deviations, number of runs, or statistical tests, leaving the significance of the accuracy deltas unquantified and the robustness of the central claim difficult to evaluate.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The mention of trade-offs in overly dense or spatial scenes is qualitative only; specific metrics or failure-case analysis would clarify the scope of the limitations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comments point by point below, acknowledging where the current version falls short and committing to targeted revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Results] The headline claim attributes the 46.4% MMAR accuracy and outperformance of larger models specifically to the Query-guided Projector and Semantic Gating within the Instruction-Aware Feature Refinement framework, yet no ablation studies, removal experiments, or controls are described that hold all other factors (base architecture, training data, projector design) fixed while measuring the modules' isolated contribution.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript lacks explicit ablation studies isolating the Query-guided Projector and Semantic Gating. The reported results reflect the full framework, and while comparisons to baselines provide supporting evidence, they do not hold all other variables fixed. In the revised version we will add controlled ablation experiments, including variants with each module removed or disabled, to quantify their isolated contributions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The comparisons to 7B-13B baselines and 8x-larger models report no error bars, standard deviations, number of runs, or statistical tests, leaving the significance of the accuracy deltas unquantified and the robustness of the central claim difficult to evaluate.

    Authors: The accuracies are reported from single evaluation runs, following standard zero-shot evaluation practice on MMAR. Multiple independent runs were not conducted owing to computational limits in our resource-constrained setting. We will revise the manuscript to state this explicitly, report any available seed-based variability where feasible, and note the single-run nature as a limitation. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical performance claims lack any derivation chain or self-referential reduction

full rationale

The provided abstract and description contain no equations, first-principles derivations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. The central claim is an empirical benchmark result (46.4% on MMAR) attributed to the proposed modules, but this is presented as an architectural choice and measured outcome rather than a mathematical reduction to inputs by construction. Absence of any derivation chain means no opportunity for the enumerated circularity patterns to apply; the result is self-contained as a reported experiment.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no information on free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; all fields left empty.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5678 in / 1189 out tokens · 20890 ms · 2026-06-27T18:16:40.851923+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Introduction The recentInterspeech 2026 Audio Reasoning Challenge[1] highlighted a pivotal shift in auditory intelligence, where Large Audio-Language Models (LALMs) like Qwen3-Omni achieve remarkable reasoning depth. However, these top-tier systems predominantly rely on massive parameter scaling (>7B–30B) and computationally expensive Reinforcement Learni...

    2026

  2. [2]

    Despite this, audio remains chal- lenging due to high temporal density and overlapping signals

    Related Work Deep Reasoning in LALMs.The success of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) [3] has shifted audio research from simple perception toward cognitive reasoning. Despite this, audio remains chal- lenging due to high temporal density and overlapping signals. Current state-of-the-art LALMs, such as SALMONN [4] and Qwen2-Audio [5], rely on massive parameter scali...

  3. [3]

    TinyGiantALM: A Compact Audio-Language Model for Intent-Aware Reasoning under Resource Constraints

    and E-Branchformer [7] have set benchmarks in speech processing by decoupling local-global contexts, their potential as ”reasoning bridges” for LLMs remains largely unexplored. arXiv:2606.08425v2 [cs.SD] 20 Jun 2026 Most existing ALMs utilize simple linear projectors that fail to filter task-relevant information. TinyGiantALM addresses this by repurposing...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    Methodology We propose TinyGiantALM, an audio-language model de- signed to bridge the gap between heterogeneous acoustic signals and textual user intent. As illustrated in Figure 2, our frame- work consists of a triple-stream acoustic front-end, a novel Query-guided Projector utilizing E-Branchformer blocks, and a Large Language Model (LLM) backbone. 3.1....

  5. [5]

    Global Branch (MHSA):Captures long-range context via Multi-Head Self-Attention: Zattn = LayerNorm(X+ Dropout(MHSA(X)))(5)

  6. [6]

    Features are expanded, convolved, and projected back: Xconv = Lin2(σ(DConv17(σ(Lin1(X)))))(6) Zconv = LayerNorm(X+ Dropout(X conv))(7)

    Local Branch (Convolution):Captures acoustic tran- sients via 1D depth-wise convolution (k= 17). Features are expanded, convolved, and projected back: Xconv = Lin2(σ(DConv17(σ(Lin1(X)))))(6) Zconv = LayerNorm(X+ Dropout(X conv))(7)

  7. [7]

    Dynamic Merge:Branch outputs are dynamically fused using weights derived from their concatenated features: [Wattn,W conv] = softmax(Linear([Zattn;Z conv]))(8) Zmerge =W attn ⊙Z attn +W conv ⊙Z conv (9)

  8. [8]

    Final FFN:The fused representation passes through a Feed-Forward Network (FFN): Henc = LayerNorm(Zmerge + Dropout(FFN(Zmerge))) (10) This hybrid encoding robustly aligns the acoustic scene and temporal events into the LLM space. Stage B: User Intent-Aware Refinement.To align the audio representation with the user’s specific instruction, we derive a global...

  9. [9]

    Dataset Training Data.We utilize all publicly available subsets of the CoTA dataset [11] hosted on Hugging Face, totaling558,423 instruction-tuning samples

    Experiment 4.1. Dataset Training Data.We utilize all publicly available subsets of the CoTA dataset [11] hosted on Hugging Face, totaling558,423 instruction-tuning samples. This collection excludes AudioSet and comprises: (1)Environmental Sounds(AudioCaps [12], Clotho [13]); (2)Speech(MELD [14], CoV oST 2 [15]); and (3)Music(MusicBench [16]). The data fol...

    2048

  10. [10]

    (11B, 40.7%) and approaches the performance of the 671B Caption+DeepSeek-V3 [23] pipeline (47.6%). Specifically in theMix-Music-Speechdomain, TinyGiantALM achieves 58.5%, trailing only the SOTA Qwen2.5-Omni [24], proving that specialized architectural priors can compensate for the lack of massive pre-training scale (see Figure 3). Reasoning Gap vs. Scale....

    work page arXiv

  11. [11]

    Signal Layer TasksAcoustic Quality Analysis27.78 22.2238.8933.33 +5.55Audio Difference Analysis25.00 25.00 50.0062.50 +37.50Spatial Analysis 40.0026.6746.6733.33 -6.67Temporal Analysis 42.86 42.86 35.7146.43 +3.57

    work page arXiv

  12. [12]

    Perception 31.54 39.6044.3043.62 +12.08Speaker Analysis 39.58 41.67 41.6745.83 +6.25

    Perception Layer TasksAnomaly Detection 41.1823.5341.18 41.18 0.00Counting 29.29 26.2640.4036.36 +7.07Env. Perception 31.54 39.6044.3043.62 +12.08Speaker Analysis 39.58 41.67 41.6745.83 +6.25

    work page arXiv

  13. [13]

    Semantic Layer TasksContent Analysis 45.07 45.39 49.3451.97 +6.90Correlation Analysis 52.0030.00 38.00 50.00 -2.00Emotion & Intention 40.00 46.67 38.3351.67 +11.67Professional Knowledge33.80 38.03 42.2546.48 +12.68

  14. [14]

    This suggests IQ primes the attention layers, enabling CLAP’s semantic an- chor for precise deduction

    Cultural Layer TasksAesthetic Evaluation 37.50 50.00 50.0062.50 +25.00Culture of Speaker 42.31 32.69 44.2357.69 +15.38Imagination 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 0.00Music Theory 22.22 15.87 22.2231.75 +9.53 Average Accuracy 38.00 39.70 42.70 46.40 +8.40 adding IQ or the CLAP gate individually yields moderate gains over the Vanilla baseline (38.00%), but their co...

  15. [15]

    Conclusion In this work, we presented TinyGiantALM, a 1.5B model ex- ploring the trade-offs between efficiency and reasoning depth. While our architecture achieves a competitive 46.40% zero- shot MMAR accuracy, outperforming significantly larger base- lines, we acknowledge a persistent reasoning gap reflected in our 23.77% Rubric score compared to 30B+ fo...

  16. [16]

    All scientific content, experi- mental design, and results were produced by the author

    Use of Generative AI Disclosure Generative AI tools were used for linguistic polishing and preparing illustrative elements. All scientific content, experi- mental design, and results were produced by the author

  17. [17]

    The interspeech 2026 audio reasoning challenge: Evaluating reasoning process quality for audio reasoning models and agents,

    Z. Ma, R. Xu, Y . Ma, C.-H. H. Yang, B. Li, J. Kim, J. Xu, J. Li, C. Busso, K. Yu, E. S. Chng, and X. Chen, “The interspeech 2026 audio reasoning challenge: Evaluating reasoning process quality for audio reasoning models and agents,” 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.14224

    work page arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    Mmar: A challenging benchmark for deep reasoning in speech, audio, music, and their mix.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13032, 2025

    Z. Ma, Y . Ma, Y . Zhuet al., “Mmar: A challenging benchmark for deep reasoning in speech, audio, music, and their mix,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.13032

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,

    J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, b. ichter, F. Xia, E. Chi, Q. V . Le, and D. Zhou, “Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh, Eds., vol. 35. Curran Associates, Inc., 2022, pp. 24 824–24 837. [Onlin...

    2022

  20. [20]

    SALMONN: Towards Generic Hearing Abilities for Large Language Models

    C. Tang, W. Yu, G. Sun, X. Chen, T. Tan, W. Li, L. Lu, Z. Ma, and C. Zhang, “Salmonn: Towards generic hearing abilities for large language models,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.13289

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Qwen2-Audio Technical Report

    Y . Chu, J. Xu, Q. Yang, H. Wei, X. Wei, Z. Guo, Y . Leng, Y . Lv, J. He, J. Lin, C. Zhou, and J. Zhou, “Qwen2-audio technical report,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.10759

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Conformer: Convolution-augmented transformer for speech recognition,

    A. Gulati, J. Qin, C.-C. Chiu, N. Parmar, Y . Zhang, J. Yu, W. Han, S. Wang, Z. Zhang, Y . Wu, and R. Pang, “Conformer: Convolution-augmented transformer for speech recognition,”

  23. [23]

    Conformer: Convolution-augmented transformer for speech recognition,

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.08100

    work page arXiv 2005

  24. [24]

    E-branchformer: Branchformer with enhanced merging for speech recognition,

    K. Kim, F. Wu, Y . Peng, J. Pan, P. Sridhar, K. J. Han, and S. Watanabe, “E-branchformer: Branchformer with enhanced merging for speech recognition,” in2022 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT), Jan 2023, pp. 84–91

    2023

  25. [25]

    Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, T. Xu, G. Brockman, C. Mcleavey, and I. Sutskever, “Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision,” inProceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, A. Krause, E. Brunskill, K. Cho, B. Engelhardt, S. Sabato, and J. Scarlett, Eds., vol. 202. PMLR, 23– ...

    2023

  26. [26]

    Hts-at: A hierarchical token-semantic audio transformer for sound classification and detection,

    K. Chen, X. Du, B. Zhu, Z. Ma, T. Berg-Kirkpatrick, and S. Dub- nov, “Hts-at: A hierarchical token-semantic audio transformer for sound classification and detection,” inICASSP 2022 - 2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Pro- cessing (ICASSP), 2022, pp. 646–650

    2022

  27. [27]

    Clap learning audio concepts from natural language supervision,

    B. Elizalde, S. Deshmukh, M. A. Ismail, and H. Wang, “Clap learning audio concepts from natural language supervision,” in ICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acous- tics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  28. [28]

    Audio- reasoner: Improving reasoning capability in large audio language models,

    Z. Xie, M. Lin, Z. Liu, P. Wu, S. Yan, and C. Miao, “Audio- reasoner: Improving reasoning capability in large audio language models,” inProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, C. Christodoulopoulos, T. Chakraborty, C. Rose, and V . Peng, Eds. Suzhou, China: Association for Computational Linguistics, Nov. 202...

    2025

  29. [29]

    AudioCaps: Generating captions for audios in the wild,

    C. D. Kim, B. Kim, H. Lee, and G. Kim, “AudioCaps: Generating captions for audios in the wild,” inProceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), J. Burstein, C. Doran, and T. Solorio, Eds. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Association f...

    2019

  30. [30]

    Clotho: an audio cap- tioning dataset,

    K. Drossos, S. Lipping, and T. Virtanen, “Clotho: an audio cap- tioning dataset,” inICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Con- ference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2020, pp. 736–740

    2020

  31. [31]

    MELD: A multimodal multi-party dataset for emotion recognition in conversations,

    S. Poria, D. Hazarika, N. Majumder, G. Naik, E. Cambria, and R. Mihalcea, “MELD: A multimodal multi-party dataset for emotion recognition in conversations,” inProceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, A. Korhonen, D. Traum, and L. M `arquez, Eds. Florence, Italy: Association for Computational Linguistics, Jul...

    2019

  32. [32]

    Covost 2 and massively mul- tilingual speech-to-text translation,

    C. Wang, A. Wu, and J. Pino, “Covost 2 and massively mul- tilingual speech-to-text translation,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.10310

    work page arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    Mustango: Toward controllable text-to-music generation,

    J. Melechovsky, Z. Guo, D. Ghosal, N. Majumder, D. Herremans, and S. Poria, “Mustango: Toward controllable text-to-music generation,” inProceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers), K. Duh, H. Gomez, and S. Bethard, Eds. Mexico City, M...

    2024

  34. [34]

    Audio flamingo 2: An audio-language model with long-audio understanding and expert reasoning abilities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.03983, 2025

    S. Ghosh, Z. Kong, S. Kumar, S. Sakshi, J. Kim, W. Ping, R. Valle, D. Manocha, and B. Catanzaro, “Audio flamingo 2: An audio-language model with long-audio understanding and expert reasoning abilities,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.03983

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Joint audio and speech understanding,

    Y . Gong, A. H. Liu, H. Luo, L. Karlinsky, and J. Glass, “Joint audio and speech understanding,” in2023 IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding Workshop (ASRU), 2023, pp. 1– 8

    2023

  36. [36]

    Gama: A large audio-language model with advanced audio understanding and complex reasoning abilities,

    S. Ghosh, S. Kumar, A. Seth, C. K. R. Evuru, U. Tyagi, S. Sakshi, O. Nieto, R. Duraiswami, and D. Manocha, “Gama: A large audio-language model with advanced audio understanding and complex reasoning abilities,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11768

    work page arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Gpt-4o: The cutting-edge advance- ment in multimodal llm,

    R. Islam and O. M. Moushi, “Gpt-4o: The cutting-edge advance- ment in multimodal llm,” inIntelligent Computing, K. Arai, Ed. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2025, pp. 47–60

    2025

  38. [38]

    Audio- CoT: Exploring chain-of-thought reasoning in large audio lan- guage model,

    Z. Ma, Z. Chen, Y . Wanget al., “Audio-cot: Exploring chain-of-thought reasoning in large audio language model,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.07246

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Baichuan-omni-1.5 technical report,

    Y . Li, J. Liu, T. Zhanget al., “Baichuan-omni-1.5 technical report,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501. 15368

    2025

  40. [40]

    DeepSeek-V3 Technical Report

    DeepSeek-AI, A. Liu, B. Feng, B. Xueet al., “Deepseek-v3 technical report,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2412.19437

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Qwen2.5-Omni Technical Report

    J. Xu, Z. Guo, J. He, H. Hu, T. He, S. Bai, K. Chen, J. Wang, Y . Fan, K. Dang, B. Zhang, X. Wang, Y . Chu, and J. Lin, “Qwen2.5-omni technical report,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.20215

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Gemini: A Family of Highly Capable Multimodal Models

    G. Team, R. Anil, S. Borgeaud, J.-B. Alayracet al., “Gemini: A family of highly capable multimodal models,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.11805

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Qwen3-Omni Technical Report

    J. Xu, Z. Guo, H. Hu, Y . Chu, X. Wang, J. He, Y . Wang, X. Shi, T. He, X. Zhu, Y . Lv, Y . Wang, D. Guo, H. Wang, L. Ma, P. Zhang, X. Zhang, H. Hao, Z. Guo, B. Yang, B. Zhang, Z. Ma, X. Wei, S. Bai, K. Chen, X. Liu, P. Wang, M. Yang, D. Liu, X. Ren, B. Zheng, R. Men, F. Zhou, B. Yu, J. Yang, L. Yu, J. Zhou, and J. Lin, “Qwen3-omni technical report,” 2025...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025