Organizations: X-LANCE Lab, MoE Key Lab of Artificial Intelligence, Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Jiangsu Key Lab of Language Computing · Xi’an Jiaotong University
Large audio language models (LALMs) have achieved strong performance on standard speech and audio understanding tasks, yet their ability to systematically generalize to novel task compositions remains underexplored. Taking a meta-learning view, we extend Text-to-LoRA (T2L) to LALMs, generating instruction-conditioned LoRA adapters with a Transformer hypernetwork rather than learning a single fixed adapter shared across instructions. To exploit fine-grained task information, we introduce in-context adapter generation (ICAG), a token-level hypernetwork architecture; we call the resulting method T2L-ICAG. We evaluate this approach on two representative LALMs using SIFT-50M for supervised fine-tuning and construct a controlled compositional evaluation suite covering five task classes. Across two LALM backbones, T2L-ICAG consistently improves over static LoRA and also the global embedding-based T2L baseline. Coverage and capacity analyses further show that these gains are larger on structurally out-of-domain tasks and cannot be explained by parameter count alone. These results suggest that generating task-specific adapters from instructions is a promising direction for improving compositional generalization of LALMs.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Radar plots for the five compositional task groups. Note that for the WER metric, the outer rings correspond to lower (better) values. The metrics are included in the parentheses.
Task group
Primitive I/S/O
Exact I/S/O
Atomic
5 / 0 / 0
4 / 0 / 1
Comparative
2 / 3 / 0
2 / 2 / 1
Selective
1 / 1 / 7
0 / 0 / 9
Sequential
4 / 2 / 0
1 / 1 / 4
Multi-function
1 / 3 / 0
0 / 1 / 3
Total
13 / 9 / 7
7 / 4 / 18
Table 1: Task distribution under overlap-based partitions: in-domain (I), sparse (S), and out-of-domain (O).
Method
EvalSIFT (ACC% ↑ )
Our Compositional Evaluation (RPS% ↑ )
Acoustic
Content
Comparison
Atomic
Comparative
Selective
Sequential
Multi-function
Avg.
Kimi-Audio 7B
18.6
41.8
11.6
85.57
44.45
79.22
2.00
76.90
57.63
w/ LoRA ( r=4 )
75.4
58.0
69.0
98.96
95.07
91.10
91.08
83.87
92.02
w/ LoRA ( r=80 )
78.4
59.4
72.6
94.58
95.76
67.38
83.88
92.46
86.81
w/ T2L-emb
77.2
59.2
71.0
97.43
90.59
87.62
92.87
86.42
90.99
w/ T2L-ICAG
77.0
58.8
72.8
98.47
98.25
99.30
98.29
97.44
98.35
Table 2: Accuracy and RPS results across EvalSIFT categories and our compositional task classes. All T2L models use r=4 .
Method
In-domain
Sparse
OOD
Primitive-level
Kimi-Audio 7B
52.42
58.05
74.44
w/ LoRA ( r=4 )
93.20
87.57
90.12
w/ LoRA ( r=80 )
86.59
87.84
77.78
w/ T2L-emb
92.50
88.39
87.47
w/ T2L-ICAG
97.78
98.53
99.09
Table 3: RPS scores under primitive-level and exact-form train-test overlap partitions.
Figure 3: Gender- and language-related compositional performance compared with the expected performance implied by atomic recognition ability. The “expected” bars are calculated from atomic performance.
Figure 4: Rank ablation results across compositional task groups. Each panel corresponds to one backbone model and one LoRA rank. The shaded region marks the average over the five task groups. The numbers after bars denote the gain of T2L-ICAG over LoRA.
Figure 5: Training-set coverage of the 29 evaluation tasks, grouped by the five task groups. Bar heights show training-sample multiplicity on a shared logarithmic scale. Tasks with no matching training samples are marked with “0”. Dashed lines denote the 1000-sample threshold, which we use to distinguish sparse tasks and in-domain tasks.
Identify speaker language (English, French, Italian, German, Spanish).
LLM-judged Acc.
SQA (Spoken question answering)
SLUE-p2-SQA5
408
Answer the text question based on the speech content.
LLM-judge Score
Comparative task (double speech inputs, single task)
Gender Verification
LS test-clean
5240
Verify whether the two speakers have the same gender.
LLM-judged Acc.
Table 4: Details of task classes, source datasets, instructions, and evaluation protocols. “LS” denotes LibriSpeech.
Task class
Task name
Source dataset
Sample num.
Requirements
Evaluation
Sequential execution task (multiple speech inputs, single task)
2-ASR JSON
LS test-clean
2620
Transcribe two speakers into JSON format.
IFR, WER
3-ASR JSON
LS test-clean
2620
Transcribe three speakers into JSON format.
IFR, WER
2-GR
LS test-clean
2620
Recognize the genders of two speakers.
LLM-judged Acc.
3-GR
LS test-clean
2620
Recognize the genders of three speakers.
LLM-judged Acc.
2-LID
LS test-clean, MLS test
2100
Identify the languages of two speakers.
LLM-judged Acc.
3-LID
LS test-clean, MLS test
2100
Identify the languages of three speakers.
LLM-judged Acc.
Table 5: (Continued) Details of task classes, source datasets, instructions, and evaluation protocols. “LS” denotes LibriSpeech.
Configuration
Kimi-Audio 7B
ICAG Hypernetwork
Num. Layers
28
4
Hidden Dim.
3584
256
Head Dim.
128
32
Num. KV Heads
4
8
Num. Q Heads
28
8
Table 6: Configurations of the LALM backbone and ICAG hypernetwork. For Qwen2.5-Omni Thinker, the configurations are exactly the same.
Figure 6: BLEU-4 and COMET results on CoVoST2 X2En speech-to-text translation from seven source languages: French (fr), German (de), Spanish (es), Italian (it), Dutch (nl), Portuguese (pt), and Mandarin (zh). The Kimi-Audio bar is invisible for zh → en under BLEU-4 because its score is 0.
Figure 7: Effect of static LoRA rank on EvalSIFT and compositional generalization under different train–test overlap partitions. The blue curves show static LoRA results across ranks, the gray dashed lines denote the original Kimi-Audio backbone, and the orange stars denote T2L-ICAG with r=4 . A blue hollow circle marks the best static LoRA rank in each panel. The numbers n indicate the number of evaluation metric units in each partition. The EvalSIFT panel reports raw accuracy, whereas the remaining panels report RPS.
Figure 8: Singular-value spectra of static LoRA adapters and T2L-ICAG-generated adapters on Kimi-Audio. We only show the rank 4 results on 8 example tasks here, while the same pattern can be found in all tasks across all ranks. Light lines denote individual decoder layers, while dark lines denote median spectra over layers.
Atomic
Acc. / Score ↑
WER ↓
ASR
–
1.21
GR
97.60
–
SER
59.16
–
LID
100.00
–
SQA
89.66
–
Table 7: Results of Qwen3.5-Omni-Plus on the 29-task compositional evaluation suite. All values are percentages. IFR denotes the strict JSON format instruction-following rate. For selective ASR tasks, SAcc. and mWER columns report selection accuracy and minimum WER, respectively; for other selective tasks, Acc. reports the final task performance.
Hypernetwork Instruction
Accuracy
Please verify if the following two speakers have the same gender.
87.96%
There are two audio clips, one from a male speaker and one from a female speaker. Please identify the gender of the speaker who speaks for a longer duration (Male or Female).
82.61%
Please recognize the gender of the following two speech clips respectively.
76.74%
Identify the gender of the speaker.
75.19%
There are two audio clips in the following. Please transcribe only what the speaker with a higher average pitch said. Only output the transcript, without any other text.
71.77%
Please transcribe the following audio:
65.73%
Table 8: Accuracy of T2L-ICAG on the gender verification task across different hypernetwork instruction variants. Note that the LLM instruction is still the original task-inherent instruction.
Figure 9: Gender-related compositional performance of Qwen3.5-Omni-Plus. Blue, gray, and orange denote atomic GR performance, atomic-derived expectations, and observed results, respectively. The expectations are diagnostic rather than strict upper bounds.
System
N
Krippendorff’s α
Agree.
Kimi-Audio
2000
0.965
97.4%
w/ LoRA
2000
0.894
94.8%
w/ T2L-ICAG
2000
0.888
95.3%
Overall
6000
0.935
95.8%
Table 9: Inter-annotator agreement between the three LLM judges on a random subset of the compositional benchmark. “N” is the sample count, and “Agree.” denotes the fraction of samples on which all annotators agree.
While Large Audio-Language Models (LALMs) have been shown to exhibit degraded instruction-following capabilities, their ability to infer task patterns from in-context examples with audio remains understudied. To address this gap, we design a three-stage evaluation pipeline that progressively reduces textual guidance to systematically evaluate LALMs' in-context learning ability in the audio modality. Evaluating six LALMs across four audio understanding tasks under two output constraint categories, we uncover a consistent asymmetry across LALMs: in-context demonstrations reliably improve format compliance but fail to improve the core task performance. This suggests that LALMs can glean surface-level formatting patterns from demonstrations but may struggle to leverage cross-modal semantic grounding to reliably infer task objectives from examples with audio, highlighting potential limitations in current cross-modal integration. We further probe how demonstrations are used through two complementary analyses, demonstration label shuffling and attention knockout on demonstration spans, both showing that LALMs leverage in-context examples primarily to establish the output label space and format rather than to learn a meaningful input-output correspondence.
Yen-Ting Piao, Jay Chiehen Liao, Wei-Tang Chien +5
Instruction tuning for speech language models (SLMs) is substantially more challenging than for text-based large language models (LLMs), as it requires learning a new modality and a wide range of speech-specific instructions in addition to those supported by text LLMs. Existing SLM training approaches largely replicate the text LLM training paradigm by synthesizing large-scale speech pre-training and instruction-tuning datasets. However, this strategy is difficult to scale, since speech sequences are significantly longer than text sequences. In this paper, we propose SpeechCombine, an instruction-following speech language model trained without any instruction tuning, using only a single round of speech pre-training on 30k hours of data. Starting from a text LLM base model, we perform continuous pre-training on speech utterances to obtain a speech-adapted model, and then directly combine its weights with the weight difference between the instruction-tuned and base versions of the text LLM. Our results show that this simple combination strategy not only preserves the knowledge and capabilities of the original text LLM, but also effectively transfers them to the speech domain. These findings suggest a new direction for SLM training that avoids reliance on massive speech data.
Congrui Du, Yang Zhang, Kaizhi Qian +1
University of California, Santa Barbara, USA · MIT-IBM Computing Research Lab, IBM Research, USA
Large audio language models answer questions about speech, sound, and music, yet their accuracy drops sharply on tasks that need fine-grained acoustic analysis. Judging which of two speakers has the higher pitch demands iterative signal-level reasoning that a content question does not. Current models spend the same computational depth on both. We introduce AdaLoop, a lightweight recurrent module that learns how many latent refinement steps a given audio--question pair requires. A shared transformer block iterates over the audio representation, guided by the question, while a learned halting mechanism exits the loop once the representation is ready. AdaLoop adds fewer than 3% of the base model's parameters and plugs into any audio encoder--language model pair without modifying either component. Evaluated on three architecturally distinct models across MMSU, MMAU-Pro, and MMAR, AdaLoop raises the average accuracy by 2.9 to 3.8 points, with the largest gains on perception-heavy subtasks where the model learns to apply deeper reasoning.
Lee Seung-woo, Bowen Qi
Seoul National University · Shanghai Jiao Tong University