ParaGeo: Decomposing Paralinguistic Variation into a Shared Latent Geometry
Authors: Yuhan Liu, Yuxuan Ou, Ruoxi Su, Mohamed Ahmed Zaki, Yunbo Long
Organizations: Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge · Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford · Department of Computing & Software Systems, University of Washington Bothell
Speech delivery varies with both the requested paralinguistic attribute and the linguistic content. We introduce ParaGeo, a matched-content decomposition of paralinguistic variation in a frozen speech language model. Synthesized audio tokens are replayed with a fixed listening prompt; pooled key/value (K/V) representations are centered and projected into a shared low-dimensional space. Our GLM-4-Voice probe spans 80 requested controls from 12 benchmark families across eight sentences. With a globally fitted calibration basis, content-held-out centroid accuracy using this basis is 9.49% versus a 1.25% permutation baseline; same-label cross-content cosine similarity is 0.285 versus 0.017, and both conditional permutation tests yield p = 0.001. A separate ten-scenario, six-style probe reveals reproducible contrast directions across scenarios. Static, additive, and temporal interventions produce attribute-, layer-, and schedule-dependent response profiles. These results provide a shared coordinate representation for measuring paralinguistic structure and an empirical starting point for latent speech control. Code is available at https://github.com/yuhanlydia/ParaGeo.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Vocal-style changes recur across contexts. Each cell measures the cross-scenario consistency of the same style-difference direction, rather than similarity between styles. Results use ten CRAD scenarios and two seeds. All 15 unique contrasts pass Benjamini–Hochberg correction at a false discovery rate of 0.05.
Figure 2: ParaGeo overview. Matched-content renditions are synthesized and replayed through the frozen speech model. Audio-position K/V pooling, within-content centering, low-rank decomposition, and a content-associated projection yield shared coordinates. Static, additive, and temporal updates reuse the same basis. The diagram and waveforms are schematic.
Figure 3: Attribute-specific responses across five direction controls. Columns show all 18 attributes, ordered by mean; S1–S5 denote the five random-direction comparison seeds. Each column reuses ten inputs and the same ParaGeo outputs. Cells report direct preference; summaries are mean, minimum, and count above 50. The pooled preference is 51.50 [45.39,57.56].
Representation
80-way accuracy
Cosine
Centered full K/V
11.69%
0.152
Projected 16-D coordinates
9.49%
0.285
Table 1: Representation measurements on 590 records. Both rows are centered within sentence. Accuracy predicts the exact requested label; cosine compares the same label across sentences.
Configuration
Pref. ↑
95% CI
Δ WER ↓
All layers ( r=16 )
54.17
[37.50,70.83]
+0.0055
w/o content proj.
43.75
[27.08,60.42]
+0.0021
Rank 4
58.33
[41.67,75.00]
0.0000
Rank 8
54.17
[37.50,70.83]
+0.0108
Rank 32
47.92
[31.25,64.58]
+0.0021
Early layers
60.42
[45.83,75.00]
+0.0160
Table 2: Dynamic control and text fidelity. Fixed 24-item subset; preference against prompt-only (50 = parity), nominal 95% bootstrap CIs, and absolute change in text-channel WER.
Family
Inputs
Preference
Emotion
12
54.17
Pace
12
75.00
Pitch
12
45.83
Rhythm
12
37.50
Timbre
4
62.50
Volume
8
37.50
Table 3: Dynamic family profiles. All 60 inputs at exploratory α=0.25 ; preference against prompt-only.
Request-associated structure in a specified replay representation.
What does the projection retain?
Raw-SVD variance; full versus projected decoding and cosine
Increased alignment with a loss of some fine-grained label distinctions.
Where do updates respond favorably?
Complete rank/layer/schedule ablations; 18-attribute control matrix; task-family profiles
Descriptive operating settings, with nominal subset intervals and complete unfavorable entries.
Is there an aggregate control gain?
Development selection; full held-out results; direct random and full-space comparisons
The current aggregate comparisons do not establish general superiority.
Appendix
Table A1: How to read the evidence. Each row names a distinct measurement obligation. Preference uses a 0–100 scale with 50 denoting parity; differences in WER elsewhere are absolute fractions.
ID
Target text
cal:00
The morning train arrived exactly on time.
cal:01
Please place the blue notebook beside the lamp.
cal:02
We will review the final report after lunch.
cal:03
A small bird landed quietly on the garden fence.
cal:04
The museum opens at nine o’clock tomorrow.
cal:05
I left the keys on the wooden table near the door.
Appendix
Table A2: The eight fixed calibration sentences. All controls reuse this lexical bank. The identifiers match the released calibration-sentence file.
very fast pace; fast pace; medium pace; slow pace; very slow pace.
Volume
5
shouting manner; loudly volume; normal volume; quietly volume; whisper.
Pause
3
clear pause after the word ‘listen’; clear pause after the word ‘but’; clear pause after the word ‘good’.
Appendix
Table A3: Complete calibration catalog: 80 controls in 12 benchmark families. Semicolons separate entries. The original benchmark wording, including “loudly volume” and distinct stress phrasings, is preserved.
Statistic
LOCO (%)
Mean cosine
Observed
9.4915
0.28531
Null mean
1.2468
0.01703
Null median
1.1864
0.01647
Null 5th percentile
0.5085
0.00443
Null 95th percentile
2.0339
0.03117
Monte Carlo p
0.000999
0.000999
Appendix
Table A4: The complete projected-geometry null summary. Quantiles refer to 1,000 conditional permutations; LOCO is exact 80-way centroid accuracy in percent.
Figure A1: Prescribed coordinate schedules, not measured acoustic trajectories. The x-axis counts generation forward passes. Gradual interpolation reaches one at pass 191; the sudden switch occurs at 96; constant controls provide the start, end, and midpoint comparisons. Interleaved text/audio tokens make this index different from waveform time.
Task
α
Items
Preference
95% CI
Δ WER
Status
Static
0.25
42
53.57
[40.48,65.48]
+0.03335
Fidelity gate not met
Static
0.5
42
46.43
[33.33,59.52]
+0.00413
Selected
Static
1.0
42
42.86
[29.76,55.95]
−0.06605
Eligible
Static
1.5
19/42
—
—
—
Incomplete; excluded
Composition
0.25
10
70.83
[55.00,85.83]
+0.12000
Fidelity gate not met
Composition
0.5
10
70.00
[47.50,90.00]
+0.12000
Fidelity gate not met
Appendix
Table A5: Development scale selection. Preference and nominal 95% intervals are against prompt-only. Δ WER is an absolute change in emitted-text WER; the tolerance is +0.02 .
Task
Candidate versus comparator
Items
Preference
95% CI
Status
Static
ParaGeo vs prompt-only
168
55.36
[49.11,61.61]
Selected, α=0.5
Static
Random vs prompt-only
168
55.95
[49.40,62.50]
Direction control
Composition
ParaGeo vs prompt-only
38
45.39
[36.18,54.82]
Exploratory
Composition
Full-space vs prompt-only
38
48.03
[37.94,58.33]
Exploratory
Composition
ParaGeo vs full-space
38
42.98
[34.87,51.10]
Exploratory direct
Dynamic
ParaGeo vs prompt-only
60
51.67
[40.00,63.33]
Exploratory
Appendix
Table A6: Complete reported task-level preference comparisons. All entries use item-averaged scores (50 = parity). “Selected” identifies the completed development-selected static arm. Composition has no admissible development scale; the complete dynamic arm uses exploratory α=0.25 .
Task
Items
ParaGeo
Prompt-only
Δ WER
Static
168
0.30526
0.31254
−0.00729
Composition
38
0.45671
0.38789
+0.06883
Dynamic
60
0.26093
0.23537
+0.02556
Appendix
Table A7: Complete ParaGeo text-channel fidelity. WER and paired changes are absolute fractions. A change of +0.02 is two percentage points, rather than a two-percent relative increase.
Configuration
n
Pref.
95% CI
Δ WER
Main (all; rank 16)
24
60.42
[45.83,72.92]
−0.0528
No content projection
24
56.25
[39.58,70.83]
−0.0528
Rank 4
23
52.17
[36.96,65.22]
−0.0403
Rank 8
24
58.33
[41.67,75.00]
−0.0528
Rank 32
24
56.25
[37.50,72.92]
+0.0065
Early layers
24
52.08
[37.50,66.67]
−0.0528
Appendix
Table A8: Complete static configuration results. The first 24 eligible held-out inputs form the fixed diagnostic subset. Preference is against prompt-only (50 = parity); intervals are nominal 95% item-bootstrap CIs. Δ WER is an absolute text-channel change. Static rank-4 preference has 23 judged inputs; its WER summary has 24.
Configuration
n
Pref.
95% CI
Δ WER
Main (all; rank 16)
24
66.67
[54.17,78.12]
+0.1250
No content projection
24
48.96
[35.42,61.46]
−0.0333
Rank 4
24
53.12
[37.50,68.75]
−0.0333
Rank 8
24
50.00
[38.54,61.46]
−0.0333
Rank 32
24
56.25
[43.75,68.75]
+0.1125
Early layers
24
42.71
[30.21,55.21]
−0.0542
Appendix
Table A9: Complete composition configuration results. The first 24 eligible held-out inputs form the fixed diagnostic subset. Preference is against prompt-only (50 = parity); intervals are nominal 95% item-bootstrap CIs. Δ WER is an absolute text-channel change.
Configuration
n
Pref.
95% CI
Δ WER
Main (all; rank 16)
24
54.17
[37.50,70.83]
+0.0055
No content projection
24
43.75
[27.08,60.42]
+0.0021
Rank 4
24
58.33
[41.67,75.00]
+0.0000
Rank 8
24
54.17
[37.50,70.83]
+0.0108
Rank 32
24
47.92
[31.25,64.58]
+0.0021
Early layers
24
60.42
[45.83,75.00]
+0.0160
Appendix
Table A10: Complete dynamic configuration results. The first 24 eligible held-out inputs form the fixed diagnostic subset. Preference is against prompt-only (50 = parity); intervals are nominal 95% item-bootstrap CIs. Δ WER is an absolute text-channel change.
Figure A2: The layer response depends on the task. All four sampled-layer configurations are shown for all three 24-input diagnostic tasks. Cells are preference estimates against prompt-only; their recorded nominal intervals appear in Tables A8 – A10 . Middle-layer injection has the largest static and dynamic estimates; all-layer composition has the largest composition estimate and a substantial text-fidelity cost (Table A9 ). The matrix is a response profile, not a corrected test of pairwise layer superiority.
Attribute
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
Mean
Min.
>50
Cold
35
55
10
50
55
41
10
2/5
Contemptuous
35
30
35
50
20
34
20
0/5
Enthusiastic
55
40
50
70
80
59
40
3/5
Perfunctory
40
30
45
30
45
38
30
0/5
Polite
60
75
55
55
75
64
55
5/5
Rude
40
45
45
60
65
51
40
2/5
Appendix
Table A11: All 18 attributes against all five random-direction conditions. Each row uses ten unique inputs, with the same ParaGeo outputs reused across S1–S5. The final columns are descriptive mean, minimum, and count strictly above 50. Labels retain the source order; no unfavorable row is excluded.
Control
Pref.
95% CI
W/T/L
S1
49.44
[41.11,58.06]
75/28/77
S2
53.06
[43.61,62.22]
81/29/70
S3
49.17
[38.89,59.17]
79/19/82
S4
50.56
[40.56,60.28]
74/34/72
S5
55.28
[45.56,64.72]
85/29/66
Appendix
Table A12: Direct ParaGeo preference for each direction-control condition. Every row reuses the same 180 inputs. The source intervals and strict win/tie/loss counts are preserved. Control orientations do not provide independent ParaGeo runs.
Comparison
Preference
95% CI
Text WER (%)
Δ WER (pp)
Prompt-only
—
—
38.79
0.00
Projected sum vs prompt-only
45.39
[36.18,54.82]
45.67
+6.88
Full-space sum vs prompt-only
48.03
[37.94,58.33]
50.28
+11.49
Projected vs full-space
42.98
[34.87,51.10]
—
−4.61
Appendix
Table A13: Composition control and fidelity on the same 38 inputs. Preference is against prompt-only; both interventions use exploratory α=0.25 . The final row is the direct preference for projection over full-space addition. WER is in percent here, for direct comparison with the percentage-point changes.
Task
Family
Inputs
ParaGeo
Random control
Static
Age
9
66.67
50.00
Static
Attitude
22
40.91
56.82
Static
Cognitive State
22
45.45
63.64
Static
Emotion
17
64.71
64.71
Static
Non-Linguistic Vocalizations
19
63.16
63.16
Static
Pace
12
50.00
58.33
Appendix
Table A14: Every reported static and dynamic family. Both preference columns compare separately with prompt-only (50 = parity); they are not a head-to-head comparison. Static uses selected α=0.5 and dynamic uses exploratory α=0.25 . Family-specific intervals are unavailable.
Setting
Value
Backbone; weights
GLM-4-Voice-9B; int4/NF4
Temperature; top- p
0.8; 0.8
Maximum new tokens; waveform rate
768; 22.05 kHz
Selected layers
16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36
Default rank; evaluated alternatives
16; 4, 8, 32
Content-basis setting
8 returned columns; rank boundary in Appendix B
Appendix
Table A15: Recorded execution settings. Restart equivalence also requires traversal and artifact identity.
Recent advances in Audio LLMs have achieved human-level speech recognition, yet existing systems struggle to capture paralinguistic aspects such as speaker traits, expressive variations, and environmental acoustic conditions. To address this, we design a framework of 22 paralinguistic characteristics and create a dataset of over 1.2M Audio-QA pairs. We develop ParA-LLM, trained with a two-stage curriculum: first on single-attribute questions to build foundational knowledge, then on multi-attribute questions for joint reasoning over speaker and acoustic characteristics. We also release ParA-Bench, a benchmark of 6,000 multiple-choice questions across speaker-speech, acoustic, and mixed categories, where frontier models like GPT-4o-Audio achieve only 36% accuracy. ParA-LLM surpasses state-of-the-art Audio LLMs like GPT-4o-Audio by 7.5% on ParA-Bench, with additional gains of 1.13% on MMAU-Pro Speech and 7.49% on MMAR Speech.
Nishit Anand, Jiaqi Su, Ke Chen +5
Adobe Research, USA · University of Maryland, College Park, USA · OpenAI, USA
Large Audio-Language Models (LALMs) have been widely used as judge models for the automatic evaluation of generated speech. However, prior approaches predominantly focus on holistic naturalness, leaving fine-grained paralinguistic distinctions underexplored. We introduce ParaPairAudioBench, a pairwise benchmark of 5,175 audio pairs across five paralinguistic dimensions: Style, Rate, Emphasis, Age, and Gender. Our experiments show that current LALM judges still lag behind human judgments by 32%p on average and exhibit severe calibration failures, particularly in Tie cases where the correct decision is to abstain. To further analyze lexical versus acoustic reliance, the benchmark includes both same-transcript and cross-transcript conditions. ParaPairAudioBench enables multi-dimensional, calibration-aware assessment of the reliability of LALM-as-a-Judge for paralinguistic speech evaluation.
Jisu Jeon, Seungyeon Jwa, Joosung Lee +6
Hongik University, South Korea · Seoul National University, South Korea · NAVER Cloud, South Korea +1
Paralinguistic cues are essential for natural human-computer interaction, yet their evaluation in Large Audio-Language Models (LALMs) remains limited by coarse feature coverage and the inherent subjectivity of assessment. To address these challenges, we introduce SpeechParaling-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark for paralinguistic-aware speech generation. It expands existing coverage from fewer than 50 to over 100 fine-grained features, supported by more than 1,000 English-Chinese parallel speech queries, and is organized into three progressively challenging tasks: fine-grained control, intra-utterance variation, and context-aware adaptation. To enable reliable evaluation, we further develop a pairwise comparison pipeline, in which candidate responses are evaluated against a fixed baseline by an LALM-based judge. By framing evaluation as relative preference rather than absolute scoring, this approach mitigates subjectivity and yields more stable and scalable assessments without costly human annotation. Extensive experiments reveal substantial limitations in current LALMs. Even leading proprietary models struggle with comprehensive static control and dynamic modulation of paralinguistic features, while failure to correctly interpret paralinguistic cues accounts for 43.3% of errors in situational dialogue. These findings underscore the need for more robust paralinguistic modeling toward human-aligned voice assistants.