Audio language models can recognize spoken commands and invoke tools, but an agent must first decide whether the acoustic and conversational context warrants action. We introduce VGBench, a 1,018-item diagnostic benchmark for action-level addressedness across side-talk, self-talk, and speaker-switch scenarios. Each item uses a shared action space comprising silence, a tool call, and a natural-language answer. Speaker-switch pairs hold the specified words fixed while source, distance rendering, and a temporal boundary define a controlled wearer-to-bystander shift. Six raw Audio LLMs and three training-free adaptations often identify the target tool yet rarely withhold action under this shift; the highest raw switch mute rate is 14%. We then use VoxGate as a post-training case study. Supervised training mutes 91.3% of switched commands while choosing the correct tool for all nearby wearer commands and text-only controls. An exploratory GRPO stage has similar switch performance; side-talk accuracy rises from 68.4% to 70.9%, and self-talk muting from 52.0% to 60.0%. Factorized controls identify an independent source-change effect, while sensitivity to the far-field manipulation varies across acoustic renderings. The benchmark therefore measures multi-cue acoustic-context gating rather than isolated speaker identity.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of VGBench construction and evaluation. The benchmark contains 1,018 items across side-talk, self-talk, and speaker-switch scenarios. Each speaker-switch item has same-speaker, switch, and text-only conditions. Metrics are interpreted jointly rather than collapsed into one aggregate score.
Method
Side-talk correct
Self-talk mute
Switch mute
Same-speaker select.
Text-only select.
Raw Audio LLMs
Qwen3-Omni
39.0
57.0
1
77
81
Nemotron-Omni
32.7
28.7
0
84
85
Gemini-3.8-flash
32.4
68.6
7
80
71
Kimi-Audio-7B
38.2
30.5
14
53
44
Step-Audio-R1.1
41.0
22.4
1
96
97
Table 1: Action-selection results on the complete VGBench corpus. Values are percentages. Speaker-switch reports switch mute rate and target-tool selection in the near-field same-speaker and text-only positive controls. Side-talk combines canonical tool selection and free responses scored by the fixed Qwen3.5-35B judge.
Model or training setting
Self-talk mute
Side-talk correct
Same-speaker select.
Switch mute
Text-only select.
Base Qwen
50.0
53.2
81.3
0.0
87.5
VoxGate supervised training
52.0
68.4
100.0
91.3
100.0
VoxGate + GRPO
60.0
70.9
100.0
92.5
100.0
Table 2: Addressedness results on the fixed 20% VGBench test split. Values are percentages. Switch mute is reported with near-field same-speaker and text-only target-tool selection to expose all-mute behavior.
Source
Field
Gap
Base
SFT
GRPO
Same
Near
0
7.50
0.00
0.00
Same
Near
600
5.00
1.25
1.25
Same
Far
600
6.25
60.00
60.00
Different
Near
0
6.25
35.00
31.25
Different
Near
600
7.50
50.00
53.75
Different
Far
600
0.00
91.25
92.50
Table 3: Mute rates (%) on the original 80-command cue validity WAVs. Same/near targets a tool; same/far and different-speaker conditions target [Mute] . The last row is the original switch condition.
Field, gap
Same: Tool near, [Mute] far
Different: [Mute]
Near, 0 ms
97.50 → 97.50
18.75 → 68.75
Near, 600 ms
100.00 → 98.75
18.75 → 85.00
Far, 0 ms
2.50 → 3.75
23.75 → 80.00
Far, 600 ms
6.25 → 5.00
46.25 → 96.25
Table 4: Target-action accuracy (%) under the proximity rule in the scene-consistent eight-condition test, original SFT → cue-balanced SFT. Each cell has n=80 ; equal-weight accuracy is 39.22% → 66.88%. Same-speaker triggers target a tool when near and [Mute] when far; different-speaker triggers target [Mute] . Complete mute/tool rates appear in Appendix H .
Model
A ( n=114 )
B ( n=58 )
C ( n=112 )
D ( n=100 )
Overall ( n=384 )
Base Qwen
28.11
96.60
55.40
65.30
45.57
WearVox-only post-training
SFT
33.33
94.83
85.71
84.80
63.28
SFT + GRPO
42.98
98.28
86.61
83.43
67.71
Joint VoxGate post-training
VoxGate supervised training
37.71
91.40
90.20
89.50
72.14
Table 5: Held-out WearVox task retention for the original SFT/GRPO training route (cue-balanced SFT is reported separately above). A aggregates closed-book and grounded answers; B , C , and D denote abstention, tool use, and live translation. Counts are shown in the column headers. D is the mean judged translation score ( ×100 ); Overall thresholds each translation item at 0.85 before aggregating all 384 binary outcomes.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Result block
Systems
Split
Decoding
Scoring record
Raw Audio LLMs
Six native systems
Full
Greedy
Canonical parser; Qwen3.5 side-talk judge
Training-free methods
AURA, TwS, SHANKS
Full
Greedy
Same action contract and judge
VoxGate gating
Base, SFT, GRPO
Held-out
Greedy
Same instruction, parser, and judge
WearVox retention
Base and post-training controls
384 items
Greedy
Official A/B/C/D scorer and translation judge
Appendix
Table 6: Result blocks and evaluation records. “Full” denotes the complete retained VGBench corpus, while “held-out” denotes the fixed post-training test partition.
Method
Side-talk
Self-talk mute
Switch mute
Single select.
Text-only select.
Raw Audio LLMs
Qwen3-Omni
39.0
57.0
1
77
81
Nemotron-Omni
32.7
28.7
0
84
85
Gemini-3.8-flash
32.4
68.6
7
80
71
Kimi-Audio-7B
38.2
30.5
14
53
44
Step-Audio-R1.1
41.0
22.4
1
96
97
Appendix
Table 7: Complete full-corpus raw and training-free results. The corpus contains 395 side-talk recordings, 223 self-talk recordings, and 400 speaker-switch pairs. All values are percentages.
Component
Configuration
Base model
Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
SFT adaptation
LoRA on all 48-layer attention q,k,v,o projections; rank 32, alpha 64
WearVox answer, abstention, tool-use, and translation data plus the approximately 80% VGBench training partition
GRPO mixture
The same downstream task mixture and addressedness examples; pair-aware grouping for speaker-switch
Appendix
Table 8: VoxGate implementation configuration.
Variable
Controlled construction
Specified text
Matched context and trigger across single, switch, and text-only conditions
Action target
Tool in single/text-only; [Mute] in switch
Voice synthesis
Eight distinct voices simulate speaker changes
Temporal boundary
600 ms silence before the switch trigger
Acoustic scene
Far-field room rendering on the B trigger only
Coverage
400 cases, 10 tools, 40 cases per tool
Appendix
Table 9: Speaker-switch construction controls.
Trigger source
Trigger field
Gap
Target
Same speaker
Near
0 ms
Tool
Same speaker
Near
600 ms
Tool
Same speaker
Far
600 ms
[Mute]
Different speaker
Near
0 ms
[Mute]
Different speaker
Near
600 ms
[Mute]
Different speaker
Far
600 ms
[Mute]
Appendix
Table 10: Controlled conditions in the speaker-switch validity set. Each condition contains the same 80 held-out commands. Targets follow the proximity rule.
Source
Field
Gap
Target
Base Qwen
VoxGate SFT
VoxGate GRPO
M
T
M
T
M
T
Same
Near
0 ms
Tool
7.50
65.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
100.00
Same
Near
600 ms
Tool
5.00
68.75
1.25
98.75
1.25
98.75
Same
Far
600 ms
[Mute]
6.25
73.75
60.00
40.00
60.00
40.00
Different
Near
0 ms
[Mute]
6.25
75.00
35.00
65.00
31.25
68.75
Different
Near
600 ms
[Mute]
7.50
71.25
50.00
50.00
53.75
46.25
Appendix
Table 11: Speaker-switch cue validity results on the frozen 80-command test set. Cells report mute rate (M) and matching-tool selection rate (T) in percent. Under the proximity rule, same/near targets T and all other audio rows target M. The final row is the original switch condition from Table 2 ; its non-target tool rate was not retained in the reported summary and is marked with “–”.
Source
Field
Gap
M
T
Same
Near
0 ms
2.50
97.50
Same
Near
600 ms
2.50
97.50
Same
Far
600 ms
90.00
10.00
Different
Near
0 ms
66.25
33.75
Different
Near
600 ms
82.50
17.50
Different
Far
600 ms
93.75
5.00
Appendix
Table 12: Cue-balanced SFT on the original six-condition validity WAVs ( n=80 per condition), using the same prompts, temperature 0 , parser, and scorer as the original validity study. M is [Mute] rate and T is matching-tool selection rate (%). These WAVs differ from the scene-consistent eight-condition set in Table 13 .
Relation
Field
Gap
Original SFT
Cue-balanced SFT
M
T
M
T
Same
Near
0 ms
2.50
97.50
2.50
97.50
Same
Near
600 ms
0.00
100.00
1.25
98.75
Same
Far
0 ms
2.50
97.50
3.75
96.25
Same
Far
600 ms
6.25
93.75
5.00
95.00
Different
Near
0 ms
18.75
81.25
68.75
31.25
Appendix
Table 13: Complete eight-condition results on scene-consistent audio. Each row contains 80 held-out commands. M is [Mute] rate and T is matching-tool selection rate (%). Same/near targets T; same/far and different-speaker rows target M under the proximity rule.
Large language model (LLM) computer-use agents are typically evaluated with clean written instructions, despite speech being an increasingly popular interface for interacting with such systems. Speech input introduces an additional failure point: transcription errors can alter task-critical entities, constraints, or targets before the agent begins reasoning, while conventional ASR metrics do not directly measure whether the information required for successful execution has been preserved. We introduce Talk2Agent, a benchmark for evaluating how effectively voice interfaces convey human-spoken instructions to LLM-based computer-use agents. Talk2Agent builds human-spoken versions of tasks from WildClawBench and OSWorld and evaluates a range of voice interfaces, including dedicated ASR models, audio-capable LLMs, contextual biasing, and LLM-based ontology repair. Because repeatedly executing long-horizon computer-use tasks is costly and stochastic, we further propose an execution-free, task-conditioned evaluation framework that projects the original task grader onto prompt-addressable intentions and measures how much task-relevant information is retained after the voice interface. On WildClawBench, Talk2Agent's execution-free native projection provides a practical, execution-grounded measure of voice-interface quality, correlating with downstream task completion and improving Pearson correlation by 0.246 over WER/CER on 32 hours of real human speech.
Terumi Chiba, Guangzhi Sun, Zheqi Yuan +1
Department of Electronic Engineering, Tsinghua University · University of Cambridge
Voice agents increasingly require reliable tool use from speech, whereas prominent tool-calling benchmarks remain text-based. We study whether verified text benchmarks can be converted into controlled audio-based tool calling evaluations without re-annotating the tool schema and gold labels. Our dataset-agnostic framework uses text-to-speech, speaker variation, and environmental noise to create paired text-audio instances while preserving the original dataset annotations. Based on extensive evaluation of 7 omni-modal models on audio-converted versions of Confetti and When2Call, our framework demonstrates that the performance is strongly model- and task-dependent: Gemini-3.1-Flash-Live obtains the highest Confetti score (70.4), whereas GPT-Realtime-1.5 performs best on When2Call (71.9). On Confetti, the text-to-voice gap ranges from 1.8 points for Qwen3-Omni to 4.8 points for GPT-Realtime-1.5. A targeted analysis of failure cases demonstrates that degradations most often reflect misunderstandings of argument values in the speech. Considering real-world deployment scenarios, we further report text-only results, an ambiguity-based reformulation stress test, and a reference-free LLM-as-judge protocol validated against human preferences. Notably, we find that open-source Qwen3 judges with at least 8B parameters exceed 80% agreement with proprietary judges, supporting privacy-preserving evaluation. Overall, our framework provides a verifiable and reproducible first-stage diagnostic that complements purpose-built audio corpora.
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.
Yuwen Wang, Tian-Hao Zhang, Minghao Cai +7
University of Science and Technology Beijing, China · Li Auto Inc., Beijing, China