HEAR Who Said What: Unlocking Speaker-Attributed Reasoning via Counterfactual Voice Grounding
Authors: Dongwook Lee, Sangkwon Park, Eunwoo Song, Che Hyun Lee, Youngho Cho, Junho Kim, June Young Yi, Heeseung Kim, Sungroh Yoon
Organizations: IPAI, Seoul National University (SNU) · Department of ECE, SNU · Department of EE, Yonsei University · Department of CSE, SNU · Department of AI, University of Seoul · AIIS, ASRI, INMC, and ISRC, SNU
Speech Language Models (SLMs) are increasingly deployed in multi-speaker environments, yet their ability to attribute speech to the correct speaker and reason over speaker identities remains unclear. Hence, we introduce HEAR, a conceptually hierarchical benchmark diagnosing the foundational capabilities of speaker-attributed reasoning, comprising 2.4K human-verified samples from 887 diverse multi-party audio clips. Evaluating 20 leading SLMs on HEAR reveals they struggle with these foundational tasks, often relying on semantic priors rather than actual vocal cues. To address this, we present A2R, a 30B model optimized on Counterfactual Audio with Speaker-level Hard negatives (CASH), a dataset designed to guide the model to prioritize acoustic vocal cues over linguistic signals. A2R achieves strong performance on HEAR and exhibits zero-shot generalization to diverse multi-speaker downstream tasks, demonstrating that learned speaker attribution unlocks the model's latent capacity for speaker-aware reasoning. All resources are available at https://attributetoreason.github.io/AttributeToReason/
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Illustration of HEAR benchmark. Inspired by Erber’s auditory hierarchy Erber (1982) , HEAR breaks speaker-attributed reasoning down into several foundational capabilities: discrimination, attribution, and reasoning.
Figure 2: Overview of our dataset and method on speaker-attributed reasoning. (A) Our dataset, CASH, randomly reassigns utterances to different speakers via voice cloning while preserving the whole utterance, yielding counterfactual variants whose ground-truth answer always flips. (B) We show an elementary speaker-attribution task from the What Do You Like? benchmark Wu et al. (2024) , where the query is unsolvable without identifying which speaker said what. (C) Our model first transcribes the multi-party audio scene, then reasons over the transcript for more reliable speaker-aware reasoning.
Discrimination
Attribution
Reasoning
Model
Size
VC
VCD
VL
CVA
VCA
IR
QR
TR
Avg. (%)
Proprietary Models
Gemini-3.1-Pro-preview
-
68.4
89.5
93.2
94.1
86.4
96.2 (47.6)
89.3 (53.6)
91.3 (51.3)
88.8 (75.8)
Gemini-3-Flash-preview
-
52.6
66.0
81.4
73.9
60.1
91.9 (40.5)
82.5 (39.3)
80.9 (38.3)
73.1 (58.5)
GPT-4o-audio-preview
-
40.5
21.0
28.3
60.3
43.5
80.0 (15.7)
53.6 (15.7)
69.6 (17.4)
48.5 (32.8)
Open-Source Models
Table 1: Evaluation results of 20 leading Speech Language Models on the HEAR benchmark. Values in parentheses in the Reasoning columns report scores under the paired setting, where a prediction is counted as correct only when both the original audio clip and its corresponding semantic hallucination counterpart are correct. A2R results are averaged over three seeds.
Figure 3: Illustration of Find the Spy, a benchmark where speaker attribution is essential. Each player receives a word (e.g., Banana ), except for one spy who receives a different word (e.g., Apple ), and players describe their words in a random speaking order. To identify the spy, a model must do more than recognize which clue is inconsistent with the others: it must also determine who produced that clue .
Figure 4: Performance degradation under overlap samples and the effect of semantic hallucination.
Model
WDYL
GAOKAO
FTS
Random Choice
50.0
50.0
23.8
Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
61.3
65.6
29.2
Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Thinking
67.1
54.8
17.2
A2R (CASH w/o HN)
95.0
78.5
40.5
A2R (CASH)
97.7
88.2
48.2
Table 2: Generalization across three benchmarks where speaker attribution is essential. “HN” denotes voice-swapped hard negative variants in CASH.
Model
Audio
WDYL
GAOKAO
FTS
Random Choice
-
50.0
50.0
23.8
Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
Synthetic
50.0
76.7
50.0
A2R (CASH)
Synthetic
96.0
93.3
65.0
Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
Human
50.0
63.3
40.0
A2R (CASH)
Human
98.0
83.3
70.0
Table 3: Evaluation on human-recording attribution-critical tasks. We compare the 100 synthetic samples with corresponding recordings produced by human speakers.
Figure 5: Results on semantic hallucination pairs in the “Reasoning” category of HEAR. “HN” denotes voice-swapped hard negative variants in CASH. Lower same-answer rates indicate higher acoustic sensitivity, as each pair is designed to elicit different answers.
Figure 6: Ablation of training regimes on HEAR.
Datasets
Model
Performance
AlpacaEval | BBH | AdvBench | CommonEval
Baseline
4.38 ∣ 94.00 ∣ 99.42 ∣ 4.07
A2R
4.31 ∣ 93.90 ∣ 96.35 ∣ 3.75
Ablation (SFT)
3.19 ∣ 68.10 ∣ 89.62 ∣ 1.90
WildVoice | IFEval | MMSU | OpenBookQA
Baseline
4.15 ∣ 87.97 ∣ 80.84 ∣ 95.38
A2R
3.93 ∣ 86.01 ∣ 76.87 ∣ 92.53
Ablation (SFT)
2.14 ∣ 78.05 ∣ 75.73 ∣ 90.33
Table 4: Evaluation on VoiceBench. We assess performance drop under dyadic conversational settings.
Figure 7: Prompt Analysis on benchmarks. “Reasoning” denotes a prompt that asks the model to provide brief reasoning before answering, while “Reasoning w/ transcript” asks for a transcript before answering.
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 8: Screenshot of the interface shown to human annotators during verification.
Domain
#Clip
#Src.
#Spk.
Dur.
Spk/clip
Hours
VoxMM
360
34
245
87.8
3.64
8.78
AMI
241
23
24
97.4
3.93
6.52
ICSI
286
6
21
94.9
4.65
7.54
TOTAL
887
63
290
92.7
4.05
22.84
Appendix
Table 5: HEAR per-domain composition. #Src. : distinct source recordings. #Spk. : speakers, deduplicated within each corpus’s identity namespace. Dur. : average clip duration, in seconds. Hours : total speech-clip-hours.
Figure 9: HEAR composition. Left: clip distribution across the three source domains ( N=887 ). Right: question distribution across the three evaluation dimensions ( N=2,395 ).
Figure 10: Sub-dimension distribution of HEAR questions ( N=2,395 ). VC/VL/VCD make up Discrimination (top three slices), CVA/VCA make up Attribution, and QR/IR/TR make up Reasoning.
Figure 11: Distribution of VoxMM clips in HEAR by genre category ( N=360 ).
Figure 12: Per-domain summary statistics for HEAR.
Figure 13: Statistics of clip duration for HEAR.
Figure 14: Sample queries of Discrimination dimension in HEAR benchmark.
Figure 15: Sample queries of Attribution dimension in HEAR benchmark.
Figure 16: Sample queries of Reasoning dimension in HEAR benchmark.
Figure 17: Sample queries of Reasoning dimension in HEAR benchmark.
Reward term
Symbol
Coefficient λ
Answer correctness
Rans
1.0
Response format
Rfmt
0.2
Speaker-tagged transcript (cpWER)
Rcp
0.5
Speaker-count
Rcnt
0.5
Speaker-order (LCS)
Rord
0.5
Appendix
Table 6: Coefficients for the composite reward terms.
Model
Checkpoint (HF / source)
Temp.
Top- p
Max tokens
Audio-Flamingo 3
nvidia/audio-flamingo-3-hf
0.7
0.9
512
Fun-Audio-Chat-8B
FunAudioLLM/Fun-Audio-Chat-8B
0.6
0.95
512
Gemma 4 E4B-it
google/gemma-4-E4B-it
1.0
0.95
512
Kimi-Audio-7B-Instruct
moonshotai/Kimi-Audio-7B-Instruct
0.0
–
2,048
MiDashengLM-7B
mispeech/midashenglm-7b
0.0
–
512
MiniCPM-o-2.6
openbmb/MiniCPM-o-2_6
0.3
–
512
Appendix
Table 7: Decoding hyperparameters used for the open-weight baselines in our HEAR evaluation. “–” denotes parameters left unset, using the vLLM engine’s default value (1.0) ( Kwon et al., 2023 ) . For A2R, we use the same parameters as the Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct model.
Figure 18: Instruction prompts used for GRPO experiments.
Figure 19: Instruction prompt template used for HEAR benchmark, consisting of a task-specific listening prefix and a common reasoning suffix.
Figure 20: Instruction prompt template used for What Do You Like and Gaokao benchmarks, consisting of a task-specific listening prefix and a common reasoning suffix.
Figure 21: Instruction prompt used for the Find the Spy benchmark.
As audio-first agents become increasingly common in physical AI, conversational robots, and screenless wearables, audio large language models (audio-LLMs) must integrate speaker-specific understanding to support user authorization, personalization, and context-aware interaction. This requires modeling who is speaking, how the voice sounds, and how recording conditions affect speaker cues. Conventional speaker verification systems provide strong scalar scores but little linguistic evidence, while current audio-LLMs and speaker-aware language models have limited ability to organize speaker information beyond binary labels or descriptive profiles. We present SpeakerLLM, a speaker-specialized audio-LLM framework that unifies single-utterance speaker profiling, recording-condition understanding, utterance-pair speaker comparison, and evidence-organized verification reasoning within a natural-language interface. We construct verification-reasoning targets and a decision-composition policy that separate profile-level evidence from the final same-or-different decision and organize recording condition, profile evidence, and the decision into a structured trace. At its core, SpeakerLLM uses a hierarchical speaker tokenizer designed to capture multiple granularities of speaker evidence. Utterance-level speaker embeddings summarize identity and profile-level cues, whereas frame-level speaker features preserve fine-grained acoustic descriptors. Experiments show that SpeakerLLM-Base improves speaker-profile and recording-condition understanding over general audio-LLMs, while SpeakerLLM-VR preserves strong generated-verdict accuracy and produces decision traces grounded in the supervised verification reasoning schema. We will release the metadata-enriched supervision dataset and target-construction code for reproducibility.
KiHyun Nam, Jungwoo Heo, Siu Bae +2
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) · University of Seoul
Transcribing and understanding multi-speaker conversations requires speech recognition, speaker attribution, and timestamp localization. While speech LLMs excel at single-speaker tasks, multi-speaker scenarios remain challenging due to overlapping speech, backchannels, rapid turn-taking, and context window constraints. We propose Speaker-Reasoner, an end-to-end Speech LLM with agentic multi-turn temporal reasoning. Instead of single-pass inference, the model iteratively analyzes global audio structure, autonomously predicts temporal boundaries, and performs fine-grained segment analysis, jointly modeling speaker identity, gender, timestamps, and transcription. A speaker-aware cache further extends processing to audio exceeding the training context window. Trained with a three-stage progressive strategy, Speaker-Reasoner achieves consistent improvements over strong baselines on AliMeeting and AISHELL-4 datasets, particularly in handling overlapping speech and complex turn-taking.
Zhennan Lin, Shuai Wang, Zhaokai Sun +5
School of Intelligence Science and Technology, Nanjing University · Shanghai Lingguang Zhaxian Technology
Annotating speaker attributes from text is inherently ambiguous, particularly in multilingual settings where demographic and social cues are implicit and culturally variable. We propose a human-large language model (LLM) collaborative re-annotation framework for stabilizing multilingual speaker-attribute labels under practical resource constraints. Starting from a noisy corpus, we use LLMs to surface recurring annotation rationales through iterative interaction with experts, and apply disagreement-focused sampling for targeted re-annotation. Using this framework, we construct WhoSaidIt, a multilingual dataset covering nine speaker-attribute labels. We quantify divergence between original and revised annotations, benchmark recent LLMs, and analyze the effect of explicit rationales on model behavior. Our results reveal substantial cross-lingual differences in annotation decisions and demonstrate both the strengths and limitations of LLMs in speaker-attribute classification.