Target speaker extraction (TSE) is a key frontend for enabling audio large language models (LLMs) to recognize and understand a designated speaker in overlapping speech. However, multilingual mixtures exhibit heterogeneous extraction demands, causing fixed-depth systems to either under-process challenging inputs or waste computation on inputs that have already converged. Existing TSE frontends generally apply uniform computation, while Audio-LLM adaptation methods neither explicitly model language-conditioned extraction demands nor preserve plug-and-play compatibility with frozen downstream models. We therefore propose LATTE, a lightweight 5.2M-parameter frontend that combines an acoustic Difficulty Estimator, a task-adaptive phonology-informed prior learned from multi-depth TSE gains, and an Adaptive Hourglass Extractor to route each mixture without requiring language identity at inference. On PolyExtract, LATTE achieves a macro SI-SNRi of 15.07 dB at 0.30 GFLOPs, retaining performance within 0.09 dB of a 0.53-GFLOP fixed-depth model while reducing computation by 43.4%, and lowers the average WER from 16.8% to 14.6% relative to TF-GridNet. By jointly modeling sample-level extraction demands and phonological structure, LATTE provides a practical framework for quality-aware, compute-efficient multilingual TSE and offers a scalable path toward robust Audio-LLM deployment.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Motivation of the proposed LATTE framework.
Figure 2: LATTE combines semantic and spectral evidence, estimates a low/medium/high compute budget, and routes the mixture through shared multi-exit hourglass blocks before target-speech reconstruction.
Language
Key Phonological Features
PDI
English
non-tonal, moderate clusters
0.15
Turkish
agglutinative, 8-way vowel harmony
0.30
Mandarin
4 tones, simple onsets
0.35
Polish
complex clusters ( szcz- , prz- )
0.42
Kinyarwanda
2 Bantu tones, prenasalized stops
0.48
Cantonese
6–9 tones, checked codas
0.55
Table 1: PolyExtract language overview.
SpEx+
TD- SB
AD-Flow TSE
TCE
TF-GridNet
LATTE
Model Complexity
Trainable Params ↓
11.1M
14.4M
85.0M
8.7M
14.5M
5.2M
Avg. GFLOPs ↓
0.62
0.74
5.80
0.55
1.42
0.30
All Directed Language Pairs
Macro SI-SNRi ↑
12.8
13.2
14.6
13.5
13.8
15.07
Macro PESQ ↑
2.92
2.98
3.14
3.01
3.06
3.22
Table 2: Signal-level extraction quality and computational cost across directed target–interferer language pairs. Results are macro-averaged over language pairs.
Language
Metric
LoRA
Plugin
Qwen3 Omni
Whisper v3
DeSTA 2.5-A
Voice Filter
LATTE
PolyExtract
WER ↓
15.4
18.8
15.6
20.6
14.6
FLOPs ↓
18.2T
4.8T
12.6T
0.6T
0.3T
Chinese
CER ↓
11.8
13.5
12.9
17.8
12.6
FLOPs ↓
18.2T
4.8T
12.6T
0.6T
0.3T
English
WER ↓
7.9
8.9
8.1
12.3
8.2
Table 3: Multilingual ASR performance across speaker extraction approaches.
PolyExtract (Avg.)
Mandarin
English
Category
Method
Trainable Params ↓
Mix WER
Ext. WER ↓
RelRed
Mix CER
Ext. CER ↓
RelRed
Mix WER
Ext. WER ↓
RelRed
LoRA
Qwen3-Omni [ 22 ]
7.0B
38.5
15.4
60.0%
32.4
11.8
63.6%
24.6
7.9
67.9%
Whisper-v3 [ 16 ]
1.5B
38.5
18.8
51.2%
32.4
13.5
58.3%
24.6
8.9
63.8%
DeSTA2.5-Audio [ 11 ]
7.2B
38.5
15.6
59.5%
32.4
12.9
60.2%
24.6
8.1
67.1%
Plug-in
VoiceFilter [ 14 ]
8.2M
38.5
20.6
46.5%
32.4
17.8
45.1%
24.6
12.3
50.0%
TD-SpeakerBeam [ 4 ]
14.4M
38.5
19.8
48.6%
32.4
16.9
47.8%
24.6
11.4
53.7%
Table 4: Multi-speaker ASR results on PolyExtract.
Task A:Slot Filling
Task B:Yes/No
Task C:Attribution
System
en
zh
yue
Poly.
en
zh
yue
Poly.
en
zh
yue
Poly.
Mix → Qwen
24
21
15
20
61
58
51
57
43
40
33
39
LoRA → Qwen
70
57
47
58
88
77
67
77
85
70
59
71
LATTE → Qwen
58
55
49
54
78
75
69
74
72
68
61
67
Clean → Qwen
74
69
61
68
91
89
83
88
89
85
79
84
Table 5: LLM semantic understanding accuracy (%).
Variant
Avg
Hard
GFLOPs
LATTE-Full
15.1
14.6
0.30g
Adaptive compute
W/o DE (Fixed-6)
13.5
11.8
0.53g
W/o refinement
14.3
12.5
0.28g
W/o L\textscbgt
14.9
13.0
0.39g
DE design
Table 6: Ablation study on PolyExtract. Hard : average over yue/vi/zu. GFLOPs are per-utterance averages over the test set.
Figure 3: Evaluation of difficulty estimation and adaptive computation. (a) Calibration of the predicted compute demand against the task-observed oracle target. Large markers denote demand-level means, and the dashed line denotes perfect calibration. (b) Quality–computation comparison among fixed-depth and adaptive routing strategies. The upper-left region represents higher extraction quality with lower average computation.
Shenzhen Loop Area Institute, Shenzhen, China · School of Artificial Intelligence, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, China · The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong SAR, China