Beyond Answer Changes: Matched Same-Class Controls for Local Audio Evidence
Authors: Yunuo Wang, Maoyuan Chen, Yuanjin Huang, Xing Liu
Organizations: The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou), Guangzhou, China · School of Computer Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China · National University of Singapore, Singapore · Northeastern University, Toronto, Canada
For audio-language models, an answer change after a local sound-event edit can reflect a response to the event's class, sensitivity to waveform rewriting, or both. We compare matched same-class and different-class replacements of a queried event. Both use the same interval, level estimate, donor fitting, and crossfade, while the same-class replacement preserves the correct answer. Across 600 synthetic soundscapes and three models from two architecture families, different-class replacements produce 49.7 to 60.9 percentage points more answer changes than same-class replacements. Same-class accuracy remains within 5.2 percentage points of original accuracy. Among trials with correct original and same-class answers, soundscape-weighted selective accuracy for the inserted class is 73.7 to 81.9%, averaging eligible trials within each soundscape and then weighting eligible soundscapes equally. This protocol tests how model answers respond to local changes in event class.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Changing the queried event’s class elicits more answer change than rewriting the same interval with another recording of that class. Nuisance and sham edits produce smaller responses. The rightmost group shows the paired gap Δ and its 95% interval. The bootstrap resamples soundscapes with both option orders and all conditions kept together.
Model
Different
Same
Nuisance
Background-
Silence
Sham
Δ (95% CI)
class
class
removal
window
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B
73.17
12.25
5.50
1.33
44.42
0.58
60.92 [57.25, 64.58]
Qwen2.5-Omni-3B
70.25
12.50
7.08
1.50
42.75
0.92
57.75 [54.00, 61.67]
Fun-Audio-Chat-8B
65.33
15.67
7.50
1.08
46.00
0.17
49.67 [45.33, 53.92]
Table 1: Answer changes relative to the original answer (%) across 1,200 trials per model. Each of 600 soundscapes contributes two option orders and six interventions. Δ is the different-class minus same-class answer-change gap. The 95% bootstrap intervals resample paired soundscapes, keeping both option orders and intervention conditions together.
Figure 2: Class-level original accuracy versus the different-class minus same-class answer-change gap. Each point represents one of 33 query classes for one model. Both quantities use the same evaluation trials.
Model
Original
Same-class
Different-class
Selective
Eligible
Eligible
accuracy
accuracy
accuracy
accuracy
trials
soundscapes
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B [ 1 ]
.882
.859
.845
.819
971
542
Qwen2.5-Omni-3B [ 1 ]
.853
.841
.838
.801
941
544
Fun-Audio-Chat-8B [ 2 ]
.847
.795
.800
.737
891
481
Table 2: Correct identification before and after replacement. Selective accuracy averages eligible trials within each soundscape and then weights eligible soundscapes equally. Eligibility requires correct original and same-class answers. The first three accuracy columns use all 1,200 trials. Eligible trial and soundscape counts summarize coverage.
Figure 3: Empirical cumulative distributions of class-level answer-change gaps. Each curve weights the 33 query classes equally and shows the fraction with a gap at or below each threshold. Gaps are measured in percentage points.
Audio-language models (ALMs) often follow text that conflicts with audio, even when the audio evidence is clear. This raises a basic question: is the audio-supported answer unavailable, or is it represented but overridden by the conflicting text? We examine this question using a same-audio counterfactual that keeps the audio fixed, removes only the conflicting text, and measures the resulting shift in model preference. Across five ALMs and four conflict tasks, 64.1% of conflict samples show a sign flip: the same-audio branch prefers the audio-supported answer, whereas the joint branch prefers the text-supported answer. This pattern suggests that the relevant audio evidence is encoded but loses in arbitration. Activation patching further localizes the reversal to answer-position computation, and patching effects closely track output candidate-score differences (Spearman rho=0.93). Using this diagnostic, we propose Gated Audio Counterfactual Logit Correction (GACL), a training-free decoding rule that interpolates between joint and same-audio scores. Under a strict 5 pp faithfulness-drop budget, GACL improves nAUC by 17.8 points over the best contrastive baseline and transfers without retuning to vision-text arbitration (up to +40.5 pp).
Yichen Gao, Yiqun Zhang, Zijing Wang +7
Northeastern University, China · Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, China
We frame the system as diagnostic data curation for a large audio-language model: before fine-tuning, we probe Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct under normal, empty-audio, and shuffled-audio conditions to identify how the model's answers change when audio evidence is removed or mismatched. These model confusion patterns are used to bucket training samples into text-prior, shuffle-leak, strong audio-dependent, and hard or misleading cases. Our strongest train-only system fine-tunes only on strong-audio items, where the normal audio-question pair is correct but both counterfactual variants fail, plus a small number of empty-audio negatives and a text-only response normalizer for parse-failed generations. On the official development set, the best train-only system reaches 67.27% accuracy after response normalization, compared with 65.90% for our local Qwen3-Omni baseline. Final submissions additionally include models trained using train+development splits and a three-model ensemble.
Audio Large Language Models (Audio LLMs) have advanced in audio understanding, yet they can still predict the answer by reasoning from textual cues or linguistic priors rather than the provided audio. A common remedy is to train models on data whose answers cannot be inferred from text alone. This approach can improve performance, but what changes within the model remains unclear. In this paper, we ask what must happen inside the model for the audio to actually determine the answer. Our findings are threefold. (1) Replacing the audio with silence or unrelated audio causes substantially larger performance degradation in the trained model than in the pretrained model. (2) Acoustic information most strongly shapes the model's representations of the answer choices in early-to-middle layers, while training mainly increases the influence of audio information on the final prediction in middle-to-late layers. (3) The weights learned during training have their largest impact in specific layer bands. Together, these results provide a mechanistic account of how training strengthens the use of acoustic evidence in Audio LLMs.
Hyebin Cho, Suho Yoo, Jihoo Jung +1
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, South Korea