Separating Decision-Rule Misalignment from Readout-Coverage Limitations in Speech Language Models

Autoregressive generation of interleaved text and acoustic tokens is a common approach to spoken-response generation in speech large language models. Although this design enables streaming generation with explicit textual guidance, generated acoustic tokens become part of the context for subsequent text predictions. Given identical speech inputs, we observe markedly lower answer accuracy for the internal text generated in speech-to-text-and-speech (S2TS) mode than for speech-to-text (S2T) responses. We term this discrepancy the \emph{output-mode gap} (OMG). To reduce OMG, we propose \emph{Joint-Output On-Policy Distillation} (JO-OPD), which distills the model's stronger S2T policy into joint generation using student-generated S2TS trajectories. At each text position, the S2T teacher provides soft targets from a text-only projection of the student's preceding outputs, while the student predicts from the corresponding full interleaved history. A preservation objective further regularizes native non-text predictions. Experiments on Step-Audio-2-mini and Baichuan-Audio-Instruct reveal OMG across two interleaved generation architectures. On Step-Audio-2-mini, JO-OPD reduces OMG from 42.87 to 16.26 percentage points on Spoken-MQA and from 29.72 to 13.04 points on speech-rendered GSM8K, with little change in S2T accuracy and substantially larger reductions than matched SFT baselines. ASR-based evaluation further shows a 7.49-point improvement in spoken-answer accuracy on Spoken-MQA.

Language models fine-tuned on customer behavior can predict outcomes and generate explanations, but these readouts are often treated as interchangeable. Holding model checkpoint and prompt content fixed, we compare probabilities obtained by scoring answer tokens with predictions generated after a written rationale. Across 13 model-domain cells covering four retail tasks in three markets, including two using fully public data and checkpoints, the scored readout ranks outcomes more accurately in 12 of 13 cells (two-sided sign test, p approximately 0.003), by 1.5 to 14.5 points in area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Paired bootstrap confidence intervals exclude zero in every newly measured cell. The gap varies with task-specific supervision and mismatch between training and serving formats, ranging from -2.2 points for an untuned base model to +13.7 for rationale-format supervision. Analysis of approximately 9,000 rationales identifies two correlates: reduced reliance on the dominant predictive feature and convergence on stock formulations. Probability saturation does not track the gap. A third readout, eliciting a probability before any verdict, improves calibration (Brier score from 0.47 to 0.15) while ranking within noise of scoring, but only for outcome rates represented in training; it is worse than scoring when the scored head is already calibrated. We interpret these differences through the objectives matched by each readout, identify training choices that narrow the gap, and propose retaining generated rationales while sourcing ranking from the scored head.

Audio language models (ALMs) are increasingly used for speech-based understanding, yet their ability to perform semantic reasoning beyond transcription, Text-to-Audio Retrieval, Captioning, and Question-Answering accuracy remains insufficiently benchmarked. In particular, the effects of accent variation, domain shift, and semantic over-inference on audio reasoning are poorly understood. We evaluate audio language models across five semantic and paralinguistic reasoning tasks: entailment, consistency, plausibility, accent drift, and accent restraint. Collectively, these tasks assess a model's ability to reason over spoken audio as the primary evidence source, including whether a textual hypothesis can be inferred, contradicted, or left undetermined by the audio, whether statements align or conflict with spoken content, whether claims are plausible given the discourse, and whether model predictions remain stable or appropriately constrained across accent variation. These findings highlight critical limitations in current audio reasoning evaluations and hope to provide guidance for more robust and equitable ALM design and assessment