Neuron-Level Emotion Control in Speech-Generative Large Audio-Language Models
Authors: Xiutian Zhao, Ismail Rasim Ulgen, Philipp Koehn, Björn Schuller, Berrak Sisman
Organizations: Center for Language and Speech Processing (CLSP), Johns Hopkins University, USA · Group on Language, Audio & Music (GLAM), Imperial College London, UK
Large audio-language models (LALMs) can produce expressive speech, yet reliable emotion control remains elusive: conversions often miss the target affect and may degrade linguistic fidelity through refusals, hallucinations, or paraphrase. We present, to our knowledge, the first neuron-level study of emotion control in speech-generative LALMs and demonstrate that compact emotion-sensitive neurons (ESNs) are causally actionable, enabling training-free emotion steering at inference time. ESNs are identified via success-filtered activation aggregation enforcing both emotion realization and content preservation. Across three LALMs (Qwen2.5-Omni-7B, MiniCPM-o 4.5, Kimi-Audio), ESN interventions yield emotion-specific gains that generalize to unseen speakers and are supported by automatic and human evaluation. Controllability depends on selector design, mask sparsity, filtering, and intervention strength. Our results establish a mechanistic framework for training-free emotion control in speech generation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: EVC with LALMs is inherently multi-objective: successful conversion requires both target-emotion realization and linguistic content preservation.
Figure 2: The overview of our four-stage pipeline for identifying and manipulating emotion-sensitive neurons in LALMs for EVC.
Speakers
S1–S6
S7–S8
S9–S10
Total
Identification
001–200 (200)
–
–
1200
Development
201–250 (50)
001–250 (250)
–
1100
Test-seen
251–350 (100)
251–350 (100)
–
800
Test-unseen
–
–
001–350 (350)
700
Table 1: Speaker and utterance-ID split of ESD. Utterance IDs are parallel across the five emotions for each speaker.
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B
MiniCPM-o 4.5
Kimi-Audio
Angry
0.13 / 10.93
3.73 / 12.93
10.60 / 16.00
Happy
45.40 / 10.13
2.13 / 5.33
39.60 / 7.87
Sad
52.20 / 21.60
2.33 / 9.80
42.89 / 31.93
Surprise
2.67 / 5.07
0.07 / 3.47
7.13 / 6.67
Avg.
25.10 / 11.93
2.07 / 7.88
15.62 / 7.13
WER
19.00
2.95
2.82
Table 2: Baseline EVC performance of the three evaluated LALMs on ESD, before any neuron-level intervention. We report the three EVC axes used throughout the paper: target-emotion match rate in % (emotion2vec / Qwen3), content preservation (WER in %), and naturalness (UTMOS) on its 1–5 scale (the higher the more natural).
Figure 3: (Left) Intervention effects on EVC, under activation steering ( c=50 , α=1.0 ). For each selector, we report changes in target-emotion match relative to the unintervened baseline in Table 2 , together with the corresponding changes in content preservation (WER) and post-intervention naturalness (UTMOS). The CAS-H row reports the results using human-filtered instances, see explanations in § 5.4 . (Right) Per-emotion emotion match rate changes by ESN selectors for Qwen2.5-Omni-7B , under the same intervention. In each heatmap, rows denote the identified ESN mask emotion ( emask ) and columns denote the instructed target emotion ( etgt ); entries are signed changes (pp) in emotion match rate relative to the unintervened baseline. Diagonal cells represent self-effects (where emask=etgt ), and off-diagonal cells represent cross-effects (averaged over all emask=etgt pairs).
Figure 4: Sensitivity to ESN selection rate r (Qwen2.5-Omni-7B, CAS, c=50 , steering, α=1.0 ).
Figure 5: Sensitivity to success instance size c (Qwen2.5-Omni-7B, CAS, r=0.5% , steering, α=1.0 ).
Figure 6: Comparison of ESN intervention methods (Qwen2.5-Omni-7B, CAS, c=50 , r=0.5% ). As explained in § 3.4 , α is method-specific, so we use different values to keep intervention strength roughly comparable across methods. Deactivation is parameter-free and hence reported without α .
Δ Emotion Match vs. Base (emotion2vec / Qwen3)
α
Self-Effect ↑
Cross-Effect Avg. ↓
Self–Cross Gap ↑
WER ↓ ( Δ )
UTMOS ↑ ( Δ )
0.3
+0.78 / +0.37
+0.48 / -0.09
+0.30 / +0.45
19.33 (+0.33)
4.00 (0.00)
0.5
+2.00 / +1.13
-0.11 / -0.22
+2.11 / +1.36
20.67 (+1.67)
4.00 (0.00)
1.0
+4.27 / +3.60
+0.34 / -0.05
+3.93 / +3.65
29.65 (+10.65)
3.99 (-0.01)
2.0
+8.89 / +20.67
-0.14 / +0.02
+9.02 / +20.64
203.65 (+184.65)
3.91 (-0.09)
Table 4: Emotion match and WER trade-off when increasing the intervention strength (Qwen2.5-Omni-7B, CAS, c=50 , r=0.5% , steering).
Figure 8: Human listening evaluation under the anchor intervention setting. Win/Tie/Loss rates comparing the intervened system (Qwen2.5-Omni-7B, CAS, c=50 , r=0.5% , steering, α=1.0 ) against the unintervened baseline. 20 participants.
Emotion
Jaccard
Direct Match
JSD
Angry
0.217
35.71%
0.009
Happy
0.075
13.95%
0.040
Sad
0.109
19.57%
0.010
Surprise
0.071
13.27%
0.025
Average
0.118
20.63%
0.021
Table 5: Similarity between ESNs identified from human- vs. SER-filtered instances , measured in Jaccard overlap, direct match rate, and Jensen–Shannon divergence (JSD).
Figure 9: Layer-wise distribution of CAS-identified ESNs across three LALMs ( r=0.5% ). Heatmaps show the number of selected ESNs per decoder layer and target emotion. Qwen2.5-Omni-7B and Kimi-Audio use 28-layer decoders, while MiniCPM-o 4.5 uses a 36-layer decoder. Values indicate where selected neurons are concentrated, not intervention effect size.
Δ Emotion Match vs. Base (emotion2vec / Qwen3)
Selector
Self-Effect ↑
Cross-Effect Avg. ↓
Self–Cross Gap ↑
WER ↓ ( Δ )
UTMOS ↑ ( Δ )
Random
+0.52 / +0.02
–
–
19.21 (+0.21)
4.01 (+0.01)
LAP
+0.32 / -0.08
+0.12 / +0.23
+0.20 / -0.32
19.00 (0.00)
3.96 (-0.04)
LAPE
-0.87 / -0.22
-0.13 / -0.27
-0.73 / +0.06
19.00 (0.00)
4.01 (+0.01)
MAD
-0.68 / 0.08
+0.51 / +0.13
-1.19 / -0.04
19.00 (0.00)
4.00 (0.00)
CAS
+0.12 / -0.42
+0.45 / -0.19
-0.33 / -0.22
19.19 (+0.19)
3.99 (-0.01)
Table 6: Activation steering in the speech synthesis module of Qwen2.5-Omni-7B. Results obtained by applying the same settings ( c=50 , r=0.5% , α=1.0 ) as in Table 3 , but identified and intervening on the synthesis module MLP layers.
Figure 10: Intervention effect on seen and unseen speakers. Δ Emotion match size changes (pp) of intervention (Qwen2.5-Omni-7B, CAS, c=50 , r=0.5% , steering, α=1.0 ) in comparison with the unintervened baseline are shown for seen speakers ( Test-seen split) and unseen speakers ( Test-unseen split), with 95% confidence intervals.
Pretrained text-to-speech (TTS) models can generate expressive speech, but reliable inference-time emotion control remains challenging: prompts and reference audio offer coarse, inconsistent control, whereas specialized conditioning and model adaptation require costly training. We present SteerSpeech, a lightweight activation-steering framework that controls emotion by injecting steering vectors into hidden activations. For each target emotion we train a lightweight low-rank transform, using a multi-expert objective that encourages monotonic emotion control while preserving speaker identity and linguistic content, constraining steering drift, and keeping the TTS backbone frozen. To optimize through discrete speech tokens, we introduce a two-pass generation-and-replay pipeline using a straight-through estimator to backpropagate expert supervision through sampled tokens. At inference, a target-emotion steering direction is optimized with its respective transform and injected into the base TTS model. Objective and subjective evaluations with Qwen3-TTS across seen, unseen, and accented speakers show stronger continuous emotion control with limited speaker and content degradation. SteerSpeech achieves 1.08x-7.12x baseline target-emotion scores and for a representative emotion subjectively, it receives 78.1%-96.8% intensity preference and 1.43x-1.46x speaker-identity preservation at high steering strengths.
Afsara Benazir, Darius Pétermann, Felix Xiaozhu Lin +1
Emotion is central to human communication, and its expression varies across languages. Large audio-language models (LALMs) achieve strong performance on multilingual speech tasks, yet it remains unclear whether they encode emotion through language-specific correlations or language-agnostic representations. We present the first neuron-level interpretability study of this question. We define Multilingual Emotion Neurons (MLENs) as functional units exhibiting stable emotional selectivity and aligned causal effects across languages, and introduce Consistency-Regularized Fusion (CR-Fusion) to identify them. Across four modern LALMs and 12 typologically diverse languages, emotion-sensitive neurons identified independently per language show minimal overlap, and additional monolingual identification data saturates quickly without isolating more transferable units, motivating identification from pooled cross-lingual evidence. Causal interventions demonstrate that MLENs identified by CR-Fusion provide more precise and transferable affective control than monolingual neuron sets in both zero-shot and low-resource settings. Leave-one-out ablations further reveal asymmetric transfer: individual identification languages, including low-resource ones, contribute non-redundant evidence, while several low-resource languages benefit most from the resulting cross-lingual transfer. Together, our findings provide the first causal, neuron-level account of how LALMs encode emotion across languages, and establish multilingual neuron identification as an effective mechanism for understanding cross-lingual affective behavior.
Xiutian Zhao, Philipp Koehn, Björn Schuller +1
Center for Language and Speech Processing (CLSP), Johns Hopkins University, USA · Group on Language, Audio & Music (GLAM), Imperial College London, UK
Integrating large language models (LLMs) into text-to-speech (TTS) systems has improved speech expressiveness, yet interpretable emotional control remains challenging. Existing approaches primarily rely on external conditioning or global activation steering, offering limited insight into the internal representations underlying emotional control. In this work, we analyze emotion-related variation in the semantic hidden states of LLM-based TTS models using sparse autoencoders (SAEs) to identify sparse latent features. Our analysis shows that emotional variation is distributed across multiple sparse latent features, while intervening on a small subset enables interpretable emotion control. Building on this observation, we introduce a feature-level intervention framework for bidirectional emotion induction and suppression without modifying backbone parameters. We further show that distinct latent features are associated with specific acoustic attributes (e.g., pitch), suggesting that emotional expression arises from coordinated latent contributions rather than a single global shift. Empirically, steering these sparse latent features achieves comparable or superior emotion induction and suppression performance relative to global steering and existing TTS baselines.
Hongfei Du, Jiacheng Shi, Sidi Lu +2
Department of Computer Science, William & Mary, USA.