Existing speech retrieval systems rely on fixed similarity matching and cannot adapt to diverse user intents. We introduce INSPIRE, the first benchmark for instruction-aware speech retrieval, in which natural-language instructions dynamically specify relevance criteria, including semantic content, speaker identity, speaking style, environmental sounds, and their combinations. We evaluate four retrieval paradigms: large audio-language models, cascaded pipelines, self-supervised speech models, and contrastive audio-language models. Our results reveal that no current method robustly handles all retrieval intents. Text-based approaches perform relatively better at semantic retrieval but struggle with paralinguistic attributes, while speech-based models are moderately better at capturing acoustic properties but falter at following instructions. These findings highlight the need for unified architectures capable of instruction-aware speech retrieval.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Illustrating instruction-aware speech retrieval across diverse user intents such as content, speaker, style, background, and their combinations.
Instruction Type
Instruction Example
Continuation
Search for the follow-up lines to the query speech.
Same speaker
Find all documents said by the same talker as the query.
Same speaking style
Return documents with a similar way of speaking to the query.
Same speaker + Same style
Get documents where the voice matches and the speaking style matches.
Same speaker + Sadness style + Same env.
Get sad-style recordings from the same speaker in the same sound environment.
Same speaker + Footsteps env.
Retrieve clips from the same speaker that include footsteps in the background.
Table 1: Example instructions in INSPIRE. Instructions range from single-attribute criteria to complex multi-attribute combinations.
Attribute \ Subset
DailyTalk
VCTK
Expresso
Synthetic
Semantic
S
–
–
–
–
–
S
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Speaker
–
S
S
–
S
S
–
S
–
–
S
S
S
S
–
–
–
S
S
S
Speaking Style
–
–
–
S
S
T
–
–
S
–
S
T
–
–
S
T
S
S
T
S
Environmental Sound
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
S
–
–
S
T
S
S
T
S
S
T
Table 2: Each column represents a subtask in subsets, where attribute constraints are defined as follows: S indicates the same value as the query, T indicates a specific target value, and – indicates no constraint.
Subset
∣Q∣
∣QZ∣
∣D∣
∣D+∣/∣QZ∣
DailyTalk
200
200
4,882
1.000
Expresso
200
800
3,861
2.000
VCTK
80
80
3,082
2.000
Synthetic
200
3,000
5,400
1.946
Total / Avg.
680
4,080
17,225
1.910
Table 3: Statistics of INSPIRE. ∣Q∣ denotes the number of unique spoken queries, ∣QZ∣ the number of query-instruction pairs, ∣D∣ the number of documents, ∣D+∣/∣QZ∣ the average number of positive documents per query-instruction pair.
Size (B)
DailyTalk
VCTK
Expresso
Synthetic
R@10
R@50
R@100
R@10
R@50
R@100
R@10
R@50
R@100
R@10
R@50
R@100
Random Baseline
Random
-
0.24
1.06
2.10
0.35
1.84
3.63
0.30
1.50
2.96
0.20
1.00
1.98
LALMs Embeddings
Audio-Flamingo-3 [ 57 ]
8
30.00
57.50
69.50
1.25
6.25
7.50
2.19
7.31
10.94
3.82
6.31
7.72
Qwen2.5-Omni [ 58 ]
3
26.50
53.00
64.00
1.88
3.13
3.13
0.75
3.75
6.69
3.14
5.20
6.88
Table 4: Main results on INSPIRE. We report Recall@10/50/100 across four subsets. Model size is reported in billions of parameters, and the best results per subset are shown in bold.
Figure 2: Performance across attribute constraints shown in radar plots for LALMs (left), cascaded pipelines (middle), and self-supervised/contrastive models (right). We report Recall@50. Sem refers to semantic, Spk to speaker, Sty to speaking style, and Env to environmental sound. Attributes marked with * specify a distinct target value rather than matching the query. Scores are normalized by the best-performing model per attribute, with a shared scale across all subfigures.
DailyTalk
VCTK
Expresso
Synthetic
Model
N@10
N@50
N@10
N@50
N@10
N@50
N@10
N@50
LALMs Embeddings Rerank with LALMs
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B
21.47
27.45
1.10
1.52
0.46
1.18
2.02
2.47
+ Qwen2.5-Omni-3B
38.50
41.69
0.77
1.34
1.05
1.53
3.29
3.47
+ Voxtral-Mini-3B
46.32
48.32
1.01
1.79
0.18
0.77
3.14
3.43
Voxtral-Small
26.60
32.55
1.53
2.17
0.12
0.41
2.59
3.08
Table 5: Reranking performance measured by NDCG@10/50 on the top 100 documents from first-stage retrievers.
Figure 3: Impact of instruction usage on retrieval performance. Solid bars show results with instructions; hatched bars without. Models A to F are LALMs; G to J are cascaded pipelines.
Figure 4: Comparison of captioning models for cascaded pipelines using detailed and instruction-aware prompts.
DailyTalk
VCTK
Expresso
Synthetic
Model
R@10
R@50
R@10
R@50
R@10
R@50
R@10
R@50
BM25
36.50
59.50
1.25
5.63
0.56
3.06
4.06
6.89
+ Oracle
\textcolor red36.00
\textcolor red49.00
\textcolor darkgreen53.13
\textcolor darkgreen95.00
\textcolor darkgreen0.63
\textcolor red2.69
\textcolor darkgreen5.18
\textcolor darkgreen7.57
SentenceBERT
32.50
50.50
0.63
3.75
0.44
2.63
4.16
6.28
+ Oracle
\textcolor red14.00
\textcolor red25.50
0.63
\textcolor red1.25
\textcolor darkgreen0.50
\textcolor darkgreen3.50
\textcolor red1.53
\textcolor red3.86
E5-Mistral
55.50
78.00
1.25
5.63
1.63
5.25
6.50
8.32
Table 6: Effect of oracle metadata on cascaded text retrieval. \textcolor darkgreenGreen indicates improvement and \textcolor redred indicates degradation compared to the caption baseline.
DailyTalk
VCTK
Expresso
Synthetic
Model
R@10
R@50
R@10
R@50
R@10
R@50
R@10
R@50
LALMs Embeddings
Qwen3-Omni
51.50
74.50
1.25
3.13
0.94
3.56
4.88
6.38
Voxtral-Small
41.00
67.50
1.25
3.75
0.31
1.44
5.17
7.23
Cascaded Pipelines with Open-source Models
E5-Mistral
55.50
78.00
1.25
5.63
1.63
5.25
6.50
8.32
Table 7: Comparison with proprietary models. Results are shown for representative open-source models and proprietary APIs from Google and OpenAI.
DailyTalk
VCTK
Expresso
Synthetic
Model
R@10
R@50
R@10
R@50
R@10
R@50
R@10
R@50
Audio-Flamingo-3
30.00
57.50
1.25
6.25
2.19
7.31
3.82
6.31
+ Mean Pooling
34.00
56.50
3.75
8.13
1.94
6.25
0.57
2.08
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B
36.00
62.50
1.25
3.13
0.63
3.38
4.18
6.00
+ Mean Pooling
27.00
44.50
0.63
2.50
1.50
4.25
1.22
3.68
Qwen3-Omni
51.50
74.50
1.25
3.13
0.94
3.56
4.88
6.38
Table 8: LALMs pooling strategy comparison. We compare the prompt-based last token embedding approach versus mean pooling without prompts.
Figure 5: Layer-wise analysis of self-supervised speech models.
DailyTalk
VCTK
Expresso
Synthetic
Modality
R@10
R@50
R@10
R@50
R@10
R@50
R@10
R@50
A → A
5.00
13.00
16.88
31.88
13.88
20.94
3.28
8.15
T → A
0.00
1.00
1.25
4.38
3.13
6.44
0.45
1.70
A → T
0.00
1.50
1.88
4.38
1.94
5.63
0.80
2.22
T → T
7.00
17.00
0.63
5.00
0.81
5.50
0.72
2.70
Table 9: Modality analysis for a contrastive audio-language model. A and T denote audio and text, respectively. X→Y indicates that the query is encoded with the X encoder and the document with the Y encoder.
Speech retrieval has become increasingly important as spoken content continues to grow across meetings, lectures, podcasts, and videos. Existing benchmarks and models have advanced semantic search over spoken content, but largely focus on what is said while overlooking who says it. In many real-world scenarios, however, users need to retrieve speech based jointly on semantic content and a target speaker, where the speaker may be specified naturally through a reference speech utterance rather than a predefined identity. To address this gap, we introduce VoiceTrace-Bench, a benchmark for hybrid speech retrieval in which each query combines text specifying what to retrieve with reference speech specifying who to retrieve. This setting requires models to integrate complementary semantic and speaker information directly from heterogeneous query inputs. Motivated by the joint audio-text modeling capabilities of audio-language models (ALMs), we develop VoiceTrace, a two-stage retrieval framework consisting of VoiceTrace-Emb, an embedding model that learns unified representations for efficient large-scale retrieval, and VoiceTrace-Reranker, a reranking model that jointly examines each query--candidate pair for fine-grained relevance estimation. Experiments show that VoiceTrace achieves state-of-the-art performance on established semantic speech retrieval benchmarks, while substantially outperforming cascade-based approaches on VoiceTrace-Bench, demonstrating its effectiveness for both conventional semantic retrieval and the new hybrid retrieval setting.
Aaron Yee, Fengjie Lu, Jiarui Hai +5
Zhejiang University · Johns Hopkins University · independent researcher
End-to-end speech-to-text retrieval is becoming an important capability for voice agents, allowing spoken queries to retrieve relevant documents without intermediate transcription. Training these retrievers typically depends on large collections of spoken query-document pairs that are costly to acquire and difficult to extend across domains and languages. We introduce \ours, which replaces such task-specific supervision with speech-transcript pairs from standard ASR corpora. A lightweight adapter projects the output of a frozen speech encoder into the retrieval space of a frozen pretrained text embedding model. \ours is competitive with cascaded ASR-then-retrieve systems while reducing inference latency, and outperforms existing publicly available speech embedding models. It also transfers to text-to-speech and speech-to-speech retrieval without additional training. Controlled analyses validate the speech-transcript alignment paradigm, demonstrating robustness to reduced training data and consistent gains from larger corpora. Further ablations of loss functions and trainable modules establish practical guidelines for the framework. Model weights and codes are to be released.
Sangkwon Park, Dongwook Lee, Youngho Cho +3
ECE, Seoul National University · IPAI, Seoul National University · University of Seoul +1
Speech Large Language Models (SLLMs) have rapidly expanded, supporting a wide range of tasks. These models are typically evaluated using text prompts, which may not reflect real-world scenarios where users interact with speech. To address this gap, we introduce DoWhatISay (DOWIS), a multilingual dataset of human-recorded spoken and written prompts designed to pair with any existing benchmark for realistic evaluation of SLLMs under spoken instruction conditions. Spanning 9 tasks and 11 languages, it provides 10 prompt variants per task-language pair, across five styles. Using DOWIS, we benchmark state-of-the-art SLLMs, analyzing the interplay between prompt modality, style, language, and task type. Results show that text prompts consistently outperform spoken prompts, particularly for low-resource and cross-lingual settings. Only for tasks with speech output, spoken prompts do close the gap, highlighting the need for speech-based prompting in SLLM evaluation.
Maike Züfle, Sara Papi, Fabian Retkowski +5
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany · Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Italy · ACC Cyfronet AGH, Poland +2