Tool-using voice agents often leave users waiting after speech ends, even when actionable information arrives earlier in the request. Speculative approaches begin work during speech, but chunk-bounded or interrupt-on-update generation can truncate a tool call before its arguments are complete. This couples computation time to speech updates, limiting useful work completed in advance. We introduce Heartbeat Thinking, which handles updated input through new Thinker invocations while allowing ongoing invocations and dispatched tools to finish. Periodic invocations read the latest partial transcript and a shared record of completed reasoning and tool results. These results help resolve missing arguments and initiate dependent calls, allowing preparation to progress across speech updates. Across SpeechFCEval, FDBench v3, and AudioCRAG, Heartbeat improves aggregate speculative tool coverage or retrieval reuse over a SHANKS-style windowed baseline, with benchmark-dependent effects on final task quality. On FDBench v3, it increases tool coverage by 16 percentage points and reduces mean final-response latency by 36.4%. The results show that heartbeat thinking paradigm preserving ongoing computation during speech can turn listening time into reusable preparation for faster and more capable voice-agent responses.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Reasoning and tool use during speech. (a) Cascaded baselines defer reasoning and tool calls until speech ends. (b) SHANKS may truncate tool-call generation at chunk boundaries ( Chiang et al., 2026 ) . (c) Heartbeat overlaps Thinker invocations and tools across speech updates; the Responder reuses completed preparation without waiting for pending jobs.
Figure 2: Heartbeat Thinking architecture (top) and execution timeline (bottom). Thinker invocations and tools overlap during listening. At the VAD-triggered handoff c , unfinished speculative jobs are cancelled; the Responder uses completed preparation available at c without waiting for pending work.
Framework
SpeechFCEval
FDBench v3
AudioCRAG
Acc.
STC
Quality
Pass@1
STC
Correct
STC
Speech-to-Speech
58.66
0.00
84.0
75.0
0.00
56.48
0.00
Pipecat
56.83
0.00
78.0
63.0
0.00
56.94
0.00
LiveKit
52.85
0.00
77.6
67.0
0.00
59.45
0.00
Window Thinking (SHANKS)
67.95
33.13
72.0
57.0
34.67
57.24
20.05
Heartbeat
66.85
43.69
77.0
65.0
50.67
55.49
62.42
Table 1: Main results (%; higher is better). Speculative systems use Qwen3.6-35B-A3B as Thinker; all systems use DeepSeek-V4-Flash as Responder. Further task and model results are in Appendix C .
Framework
Avg. Acc. ↑
STC ↑
Responder: DeepSeek-V4-Flash
Speech-to-Speech
58.66
0.00
Pipecat
56.83
0.00
LiveKit
52.85
0.00
Window Thinking (SHANKS)
67.95
33.13
Heartbeat
66.85
43.69
Table 2: SpeechFCEval accuracy and STC across Responders (%), with Qwen3.6-35B-A3B as Thinker.
Framework
Quality ↑
Pass@1 ↑
STC ↑
Responder: DeepSeek-V4-Flash
Speech-to-Speech
84.0
75.0
0.0
Pipecat
78.0
63.0
0.0
LiveKit
77.6
67.0
0.0
Window Thinking (SHANKS)
72.0
57.0
34.67
Heartbeat
77.0
65.0
50.67
Table 3: FDBench v3 results across Responders (%), with Qwen3.6-35B-A3B as Thinker.
Figure 3: Mean Correct Tool Call Latency on FDBench v3 relative to speech end, measured at initiation of the first tool call matching the final request. Negative values indicate events occurring before speech end. Numerical results are reported in Table 5 .
Figure 4: Mean Final Response Latency on FDBench v3 relative to speech end, measured at the onset of the final spoken response. Details are reported in Table 5 .
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Parameter
Value
ASR
Qwen3-ASR-1.7B
TTS
Qwen3-TTS-12Hz-1.7B-Base
ASR update block
500 ms
VAD minimum speech
200 ms
VAD minimum silence
800 ms
VAD padding
500 ms
Appendix
Table 4: Speech pipeline and heartbeat scheduling settings for the FDBench v3 latency evaluation.
System
Correct Tool Call
Final Response
Heartbeat
−4.37
4.39
Window Thinking (SHANKS)
−2.74
6.90
Speech-to-Speech
2.72
8.39
Pipecat
2.45
8.08
LiveKit
3.52
8.52
Appendix
Table 5: Mean event latencies on FDBench v3 (seconds), measured relative to speech end. Negative values indicate events occurring before speech end.
Table 6: SpeechFCEval results (%) with DeepSeek-V4-Flash as the Responder. (a) Function-calling accuracy and (b) speculative tool coverage (STC).
Framework
Thinker
Quality
Pass@1
STC
Cascaded
Speech-to-Speech
–
84.0
75.0
0.0
Pipecat
–
78.0
63.0
0.0
LiveKit
–
77.6
67.0
0.0
Window Thinking (SHANKS)
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
72.0
57.0
34.67
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
77.0
65.0
50.67
Appendix
Table 7: FDBench v3 task performance and speculative tool coverage (STC; %) with DeepSeek-V4-Flash as the Responder.
Framework
Thinker
Correct ↑
Missing
Hallucination ↓
STC ↑
Cascaded
Speech-to-Speech
–
56.48
11.97
31.55
0.00
Pipecat
–
56.94
11.97
31.10
0.00
LiveKit
–
59.45
12.88
27.67
0.00
Window Thinking (SHANKS)
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
57.24
14.33
28.43
20.05
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
55.49
16.84
27.67
62.42
Appendix
Table 8: AudioCRAG answer outcomes and retrieval reuse (%) with DeepSeek-V4-Flash as the Responder. Here, STC measures the share of samples with completed speculative results included in the Responder’s context and no additional retrieval by the Responder.
Framework
Correct ↑
Miss.
Hallu. ↓
STC ↑
Responder: DeepSeek-V4-Flash
Speech-to-Speech
56.48
11.97
31.55
0.00
Pipecat
56.94
11.97
31.10
0.00
LiveKit
59.45
12.88
27.67
0.00
Window Thinking (SHANKS)
57.24
14.33
28.43
20.05
Heartbeat
55.49
16.84
27.67
62.42
Appendix
Table 9: AudioCRAG answer outcomes and retrieval reuse across Responder models (%), with Qwen3.6-35B-A3B as the Thinker. The highest reuse rate and correct-answer rate occur with different Responders.
Figure 5: Speculative tool calls during listening on FDBench v3. Red markers indicate the last words available to the Thinker when each invocation began; callouts give tool-request initiation times and arguments. Times are relative to audio onset. Word alignment is approximate, and ASR text is normalized for display.
Input group
Success rate
Early information
73.3%
Late information
49.2%
Explicit revision
70.6%
Appendix
Table 10: Correct tool-call initiation before speech end on FDBench v3, grouped by information timing and explicit intent revision. For revision cases, the rate measures corrected calls following an outdated request. Group definitions are given in Appendix D .
Tool-augmented speech assistants typically serialize automatic speech recognition, large language model inference, and external tool execution. As a result, tool latency is incurred only after the user has finished speaking and the LLM has identified the required tool calls. We present speculative tool execution for on-device cascaded voice agents, which predicts tool requests from partial ASR hypotheses and initiates tool execution while speech is still being received, thereby reducing end-to-end response latency. Our approach introduces a Predictor module that anticipates tool calls during speech recognition, executes them speculatively, and caches the results. The cached outputs are then injected into the LLM prompt, enabling faster responses. Additionally, to mitigate errors caused by user self-corrections during speech, we employ a rule-based validation mechanism that selectively injects only valid cached results. As a final safeguard, the LLM retains the ability to issue tool calls directly, ensuring that the latency of our framework is upper-bounded by the baseline serial execution pipeline in the worst case. We evaluate our method using live measurements from a fully implemented Android voice assistant. Our approach reduces the median time-to-first-audio from 5.79,s to 4.60,s and decreases the standard deviation from 3.49,s to 2.81,s, resulting in more predictable response latency.
Realtime spoken interaction demands deep reasoning, prompt responses, and fluid turn-taking. We present StepAudio 3 Realtime, an audio-language foundation model organized around a continuous listen-converse-think-act loop. Deep Perception captures rich acoustic cues to interpret user intent, while Seamless Duplex models synchronized audio streams to handle pauses, backchannels, and interruptions naturally. Crucially, we resolve the tension between deep deliberation and latency via Think-While-Speaking, executing private reasoning in parallel with spoken delivery. In reasoning mode, StepAudio 3 reaches a 73.0 macro average on StepAudioChat. With Think-While-Speaking, it achieves dialogue and reasoning performance comparable to dedicated reasoning models while speaking in real time. Furthermore, an integrated Voice Agent handles asynchronous tool execution without disrupting the dialogue flow. StepAudio 3 Realtime achieves top-tier performance across key dimensions: an exceptional 90.6 on the MMSU benchmark, 98.9 Overall on the Artificial Analysis Full-Duplex Bench, and a 56.0% macro task-success rate on τ-Voice.
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