Who Are They to Each Other? Multi-Agent Reasoning for Speaker Relationship Inference
Authors: Yaohan Guan, Yen-Ju Lu, Yuzhe Wang, Junhyeok Lee, Jesus Villalba, Laureano Moro Velazquez, Thomas Thebaud, Najim Dehak
Abstract
Inferring speaker relationships from spoken conversations is an important step towards socially aware speech understanding. However, this task remains underexplored, and supervised modeling is costly to train and scale. At the same time, existing inference-time LLM approaches provide limited structure for handling subtle, distributed, and multimodal relational cues that may support multiple plausible interpretations. To address these limitations, we introduce a training-free multi-agent reasoning framework that organizes inference through structured interaction among LLM agents, allowing relationship judgments to be proposed, challenged, and adjudicated without task-specific training. We instantiate this framework with two complementary designs. We propose Multi-Role Multi-Agent Debate as a task-specific adaptation of standard multi-agent debate for speaker relationship inference, assigning agents complementary roles or social-theory-grounded perspectives rather than a single undifferentiated viewpoint. In contrast, we introduce Multi-Agent Compete, a competition-based protocol that compares agent judgments through pairwise adjudication, eliminates weaker candidates, and retains the most defensible one. We evaluate these methods on the Seamless Interaction dataset across different modality settings, covering both binary classification and fine-grained relationship-detail prediction. Results suggest that they improve over zero-shot and existing multi-agent baselines in most cases. Human evaluation further suggests that this task is challenging even for people. LLM methods can sometimes outperform human annotators in text-included settings but are less competitive in the audio setting. Together, these findings suggest that relationship inference benefits from structured inference-time interaction among agents, while acoustic cues are not yet fully captured by current models.
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.
Complex acoustic problems may require models to perform acoustic operations, interact with external tools and reason over the resulting textual or processed-audio observations rather than answer directly from a fixed audio input. We study such problems as tool-interactive audio reasoning and develop SpeechAgent-R, an audio agent that coordinates its intrinsic multimodal understanding with external skills and tools. To support this capability, we construct HIU-Corpus, comprising 65,492 interaction trajectories and 507.6 hours of audio across 24 tasks, 8 skills and 9 tools. SpeechAgent-R first learns structured interaction behaviors through trajectory-based supervised fine-tuning and then improves its decisions through multi-turn reinforcement learning. We further introduce HIU-Bench to jointly evaluate task performance, interaction quality and generalization to diverse task settings. It contains 1,395 samples across 56 tasks, including in-distribution (ID) and out-of-distribution (OOD) splits with substantial shifts in tool usage and workflow composition. SpeechAgent-R achieves 84.17 on ID tasks and 70.94 on OOD tasks, improving over the base model under the same agent harness by 15.40 and 14.23 points. These results demonstrate that learning skill and tool coordination improves audio agents' ability to handle diverse task settings and adaptive tool interactions.
We investigate turn-taking in multimodal multi-party conversations using large language models (LLMs). We construct an evaluation framework for three tasks: addressee detection, turn-change prediction, and next speaker prediction. We compare supervised models trained for these tasks, text-based LLMs, multimodal LLMs (MM-LLMs), and human subjects. Experiments on the AMI corpus showed that LLMs outperformed supervised models and humans in next speaker prediction, despite not being trained on the target domain and without access to audio or visual information. An MM-LLM performed better than text-based LLMs on addressee detection and turn-change prediction but remained below human performance, indicating difficulty leveraging raw audio-visual signals. Ablation analyses revealed that conversational context was critical, particularly for next speaker prediction. We observed that human and LLM prediction patterns were similar, and intervals with frequent turn changes were difficult for both.