We report the empirical reliability of Gemini models as audio judges that score full-duplex agent conversations directly from the raw stereo waveform, tested across three models in the Gemini family: 2.5 Flash, 3.5 Flash, and 3.1 Pro. Our primary evidence base uses Gemini 2.5 Flash as the ground-truth model, validated against three calibrated human raters on 209 stereo sessions, scored on 8 production dimensions: 152 full-duplex conversations across 13 accent-and-condition strata, together with 57 adversarial defect-injected clips. The evidence for Gemini 2.5 Flash is consistent across three tests. (i) On 5 of 8 dimensions the LALM-human Spearman rho departs from the pairwise human-human rho by at most 0.07, and on 7 of 8 dimensions the two quantities 95 percent bootstrap confidence intervals overlap. (ii) The LALM agrees with the three-rater human mean within 1 point on 60 to 92 percent of sessions on 6 of 8 dimensions. (iii) On 45 of 48 (defect, dimension) cells the LALM is as sensitive as humans or better under Newcombe-Wilson 95 percent confidence intervals, though most of these are underpowered nulls rather than demonstrated parity. Rank-ordering ability transfers across the Gemini family: 3.5 Flash improves simple agreement to 8 of 8 dimensions, while 3.1 Pro rates several dimensions markedly lower than humans despite comparable rank correlation. A model swap should be re-validated on calibration specifically, not assumed from rank-correlation alone. We identify four areas where deployment requires care, and we estimate that human rating alone for our current evaluation cadence costs roughly two orders of magnitude more than the equivalent LALM workload. The data presented here provides a defensible empirical basis for deploying the LALM as a substitute or fourth rater on the dimensions where the evidence supports it.
Large audio-language models (LALMs) are increasingly used as automatic judges for speech evaluation. However, high agreement with human ratings does not guarantee that their verdicts are grounded in the audio. A judge may instead rely on specialist labels or reference data supplied by the evaluation protocol itself, taking a shortcut in place of listening to the audio. In this paper, we audit such protocol-level ``shortcuts'' in LALM judges across three common deployment protocols: feature-blueprint judging, where the audio is replaced by a structured text description of acoustic features, reference-conditioned judging, and pairwise A/B comparison. Across six judges and four attributes, we find that several LALMs rely on protocol-level shortcuts. For example, in feature-blueprint judging, incorrect specialist labels reduce five judges' emotion accuracy to 0.10 or below, and in concatenated A/B comparisons, Qwen3-Omni-Thinking often picks the same slot regardless of order swaps. These results indicate that aggregate agreement can overstate the validity of LALM judges unless the model and the evaluation protocol are assessed jointly, and that each model-protocol pair should be evaluated with a matched shortcut probe.
Evaluating conversational voice agents at scale re- quires reliable assessment methods that capture both observ- able interaction quality and the contextual judgment typically provided by human evaluators. We investigate LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation by comparing human judgments with GPT-4.1 and GPT-5 on telecom and retail voice-agent conversations, across conversational quality and safety dimensions. The same interac- tions are scored under three evaluation configurations, p0, p1, and p2, to test whether automated judgments are sensitive to the evaluation setup and whether observed patterns generalize across configurations and judge models. Beyond aggregate agreement, we examine metric-level correlations, evaluator consistency, and systematic human-LLM disagreement to identify which conver- sational attributes can be judged reliably by automation and which remain sensitive to interpretation and context. Effective voice-agent evaluation is also shaped by pipeline-level factors such as speech generation, streaming, and error propagation across ASR, reasoning, and tool-calling stages, motivating our focus on comparing how human and LLM judges score the same interactions end to end. Our results show that LLM- based evaluation can serve as an effective component of large- scale voice-agent assessment, but that its reliability is metric- and configuration-dependent rather than uniform. This pro- vides an empirical framework for identifying which metrics suit automated evaluation and supports hybrid pipelines in which LLM judges handle scalable assessment while human evaluators remain engaged for metrics that demand contextual interpretation and higher-confidence judgment.
Audio-language models (ALMs) are increasingly used as judges for speech-to-speech systems, but a judge that receives audio may not actually use paralinguistic evidence. We introduce counterfactual audits for paralinguistic response evaluation. Each audit item holds the transcript fixed while varying affect, prosody, or the timing of an affective shift, forcing a valid judge to track the audio cue rather than lexical content or response style. We evaluate ALM judges using a native one-context judgment protocol and a contrastive recoverability control, then further decompose each item into its constituent perception and response-mapping skills. This yields useful diagnostic states that identify different sources of judge failures. Across Gemini, GPT, and open audio models, we find that contrastive success often overstates native judge reliability, and that similar aggregate accuracies can hide different failure modes. These results suggest that ALM judges should not be evaluated by accuracy alone, instead requiring thorough behavioral audits before deployment.