Bridging Neural Representations and Symbolic Semantics in Audio Classification
Organizations: Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas
Abstract
Deep audio classifiers can achieve strong predictive performance, but their hidden representations remain difficult to interpret. Existing audio explainability methods often focus on input-level attribution, such as waveform segments, spectrogram regions, or acoustic features, and provide limited insight into what hidden neurons encode. Interpreting hidden neurons at the concept level can provide a more meaningful view of what an audio model learns internally. This paper investigates whether hidden neurons in audio classifiers can be associated with human-understandable symbolic acoustic concepts. A model-agnostic neurosymbolic framework is presented for analyzing the final hidden layer of audio classifiers, containing 32 neurons, through symbolic concept induction. The framework is evaluated on two audio classification settings: music genre classification using GTZAN dataset and musical instrument classification using IRMAS dataset. Results show that several hidden neurons can be associated with meaningful induced concepts, and most confirmed neuron-concept pairs are statistically supported using the Mann-Whitney U test. These findings suggest that symbolic concept induction is a promising direction for explaining latent audio representations beyond input-level attribution.
Figures & tables
| GTZAN | IRMAS | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Class | Count | Class | Count |
| Jazz | 1000 | Electric guitar (gel) | 760 |
| Classical | 998 | Piano (pia) | 721 |
| Hip-hop | 998 | Organ (org) | 682 |
| Rock | 998 | Acoustic guitar (gac) | 637 |
| Country | 997 | Cello (cel) | 388 |
| Feature Descriptor | Low Tags | High Tags | Purpose | Tags Interpretation | Source |
| Tempo ( tempo ) | Slow | Fast | Estimates pace in beats per minute | Lower tempo = slower musical pacing, higher tempo = faster pacing. | ( McFee et al., 2015 ; Costa, 2026 ) |
| Root Mean Square Energy ( rms_mean ) | Soft | Loud | Measures average signal energy | Lower RMS energy is treated as a proxy for softer sound, while higher RMS energy for louder sound. | ( McFee et al., 2015 ; Rawlinson et al., 2015 ; Constantinescu and Brad, 2023 ) |
| Spectral Centroid ( spectral_centroid _mean ) | Dark | Bright | Measures the center of mass of the spectrum | Lower centroid refers to darker or lower frequency dominant timbre, and higher centroid to brighter timbre. | ( Racharla et al., 2020 ; McFee et al., 2015 ; Rawlinson et al., 2015 ) |
| Spectral Bandwidth ( spectral_bandwidth _mean ) | Pure | Rich | Measures the spread of spectral energy around the spectral centroid. | Lower bandwidth = more focused spectrum, higher bandwidth = broader spectral spread and richer overtone content. | ( Antunes et al., 2019 ; Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2025 ; Cusack and Roberts, 1999 ; Jannereth and Esch, 2021 ) |
| Spectral Rolloff ( rolloff_mean ) | Mellow | Crisp | Measures the frequency below which most spectral energy is contained. | Lower rolloff means most energy is concentrated in lower frequencies and interpreted as more mellow; higher rolloff indicates stronger high-frequency contribution, thus more crisp. | ( Reymore et al., 2022 ; McFee et al., 2015 ) |
| Zero-Crossing Rate ( zero_crossing_rate _mean ) | Smooth | Noisy | Measures how frequently the waveform changes sign over time. | Lower zero-crossing rate is associated with smoother or more periodic signals, while higher zero-crossing rate is with noisier or more rapidly varying signals. | ( Gouyon et al., 2000 ; Bogdanov et al., 2013 ) |
| Neuron | Pos. Trigger(%) | Neg. Trigger(%) | Induced Concepts |
|---|---|---|---|
| neuron_22 | 80 | 0 | Noisy and Soft |
| neuron_10 | 70 | 0 | Pure and Soft |
| neuron_12 | 70 | 10 | Crisp and Smooth |
| neuron_31 | 60 | 0 | Pure and Soft |
| neuron_9 | 60 | 10 | Bright and (not (Rich)) |
| neuron_21 | 60 | 0 | Noisy and Pure |
| Neuron | Pos. Trigger(%) | Neg. Trigger(%) | Induced Concepts |
|---|---|---|---|
| neuron_30 | 80 | 0 | NonMelodic and Pure |
| neuron_7 | 80 | 20 | Rich and Soft |
| neuron_9 | 70 | 10 | Rich and Smooth |
| neuron_22 | 60 | 0 | Loud and Noisy |
| neuron_15 | 60 | 10 | Crisp and Smooth |
| neuron_0 | 50 | 0 | Bright and Loud |
| Study / Task | Domain | Analyzed Neurons | Validated | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dalal et al. ( Dalal et al., 2024 ) | Image | 64 | 19 | 29.7 |
| Sarma et al. ( Sarma et al., 2026 ) | Image | 64 | 29 | 45.3 |
| Das et al. ( Das et al., 2025 ) | Text | 64 | 23 | 35.9 |
| Genre classification (this paper) | Audio | 32 | 7 | 21.9 |
| Instrument classification (this paper) | Audio | 32 | 9 | 28.1 |
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Neuron | Pos. Trigger(%) | Neg. Trigger(%) | Induced Concepts |
|---|---|---|---|
| neuron_22 | 80 | 0 | Noisy and Soft |
| neuron_10 | 70 | 0 | Pure and Soft |
| neuron_12 | 70 | 10 | Crisp and Smooth |
| neuron_31 | 60 | 0 | Pure and Soft |
| neuron_9 | 60 | 10 | Bright and (not (Rich)) |
| neuron_21 | 60 | 0 | Noisy and Pure |
| Neuron | Pos. Trigger(%) | Neg. Trigger(%) | Induced Concepts |
|---|---|---|---|
| neuron_30 | 80 | 0 | NonMelodic and Pure |
| neuron_7 | 80 | 20 | Rich and Soft |
| neuron_9 | 70 | 10 | Rich and Smooth |
| neuron_22 | 60 | 0 | Loud and Noisy |
| neuron_15 | 60 | 10 | Crisp and Smooth |
| neuron_0 | 50 | 0 | Bright and Loud |