Voice-Native LLMs Hear Frustration but Do Not Listen to It
Organizations: New York University Abu Dhabi
Abstract
Users convey frustration in what they say and in how they say it, and voice-native models, which hear speech instead of an ASR transcript, can register both. Existing evaluations read unchanged performance as robustness without checking perception. Following Brunswik's lens model, we measure on identical audio whether frustration is expressed, perceived, and utilized. We cross frustrated wording with frustrated voice in a within-item 2x2 design over 353 tasks and release the 1,412 clips as VoxAffect. Across 8 models, outputs look robust, with no detectable vocal effect on accuracy for 7. With neutral wording, all 8 label the frustrated voice frustrated in at most 3.1% of clips, although 7 of them detect acted anger in 73-100% of clips and human listeners classify the voice correctly in 65.3% of judgments. Yet linear probes decode the frustrated voice from the audio encoders of the 2 open-weight models, with paired accuracy 0.67 and 0.69, and in proprietary models too the voice raises perceived frustration once the words agree. The models thus hear the frustrated voice but do not listen to it, whereas their invariance to frustrated wording, perceived in 40-75% of clips, is genuine robustness. Our work is openly accessible at https://github.com/Astarojth/hear-not-listen.
Figures & tables
| Utilization | Perception | Regime | ||||||||
| Model | Anger | Voice | Wording | |||||||
| Gemini-3.8 | 84.2 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 91.7 | unperc. invariance | genuine robustness | ||||
| Gemini-3.1 | 82.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 75.0 | unperc. invariance | genuine robustness | ||||
| MiMo-2.6-Pro | 76.5 | 0.8 | 1.6 | 95.8 | unperc. invariance | genuine robustness | ||||
| MiMo-2.6-Flash | 71.0 | 0.6 | 1.7 | 94.8 | unperc. sensitivity | genuine robustness | ||||
| Doubao-2.0 | 75.1 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 100.0 | unperc. invariance | genuine robustness | ||||
| Vocal (pp) | Wording (pp) | |||||||
| Model | MMLU-Pro | GPQA | IFEval | MATH-500 | MMLU-Pro | GPQA | IFEval | MATH-500 |
| Gemini-3.8 | ||||||||
| Gemini-3.1 | ||||||||
| MiMo-2.6-Pro | ||||||||
| MiMo-2.6-Flash | ||||||||
| Doubao-2.0 | ||||||||
| Representation | Qwen-2.5 | MiMo-Audio |
| Audio encoder, middle layer | ||
| Audio side, last stage | ||
| LLM over audio, middle layer | ||
| acoustics regressed out | ||
| LLM at answer, last layer | ||
| 18 acoustic features |
| Rise Q1 Q4 (pp) | |||
| Model | BV BN | AV AN | (pp) |
| Gemini-3.8 | |||
| Gemini-3.1 | |||
| MiMo-2.6-Pro | |||
| MiMo-2.6-Flash | |||
| Doubao-2.0 | |||
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Words | Duration (s) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benchmark | Items | Voices | Neu. | Fru. | Neu. | Fru. |
| MMLU-Pro | 85 | 53 | 158 | 165 | 69.7 | 68.0 |
| GPQA-Diamond | 84 | 55 | 143 | 147 | 64.1 | 64.9 |
| IFEval | 89 | 53 | 41 | 59 | 18.3 | 17.9 |
| MATH-500 | 95 | 54 | 57 | 69 | 23.2 | 22.5 |
| Total | 353 | 55 | 98 | 108 | 42.9 | 42.4 |
| Main task | Tone probe | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | Input | Output | Input | Output |
| Gemini-3.8 | 1.53 | 1.20 | 1.59 | 0.15 |
| Gemini-3.1 | 1.53 | 5.40 | 1.59 | 0.36 |
| MiMo-2.6-Pro | 0.42 | 6.89 | 0.48 | 0.11 |
| MiMo-2.6-Flash | 0.42 | 4.99 | 0.48 | 0.12 |
| Doubao-2.0 | 0.46 | 1.59 | 0.52 | 0.12 |
| Accuracy (%) | Effect (pp) [95% CI] | ||||||
| Model | BN | BV | AN | AV | Vocal | Wording | Interaction |
| Gemini-3.8 | 84.2 | 84.5 | 83.3 | 83.0 | |||
| Gemini-3.1 | 82.1 | 85.1 | 82.8 | 82.6 | |||
| MiMo-2.6-Pro | 76.5 | 75.0 | 75.9 | 76.9 | |||
| MiMo-2.6-Flash | 71.0 | 78.1 | 73.7 | 70.5 | |||
| Doubao-2.0 | 75.1 | 72.4 | 71.1 | 70.0 | |||
| (%) | Contrast (pp) [95% CI] | Match (%) | |||||||
| Model | BN | BV | AN | AV | BV BN | Voice | Text | ||
| Gemini-3.8 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 70.0 | 72.5 | 50.7 | 85.3 | |||
| Gemini-3.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 74.8 | 76.7 | 50.5 | 87.3 | |||
| MiMo-2.6-Pro | 0.8 | 1.6 | 60.2 | 66.1 | 51.7 | 81.0 | |||
| MiMo-2.6-Flash | 0.6 | 1.7 | 64.3 | 65.1 | 50.4 | 81.8 | |||
| Doubao-2.0 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 65.7 | 66.4 | 50.3 | 82.9 | |||
| Core block (neutral wording) | Optional block (frustrated wording) | Full clips | ||||||||||
| Model | BN | BV | BV BN [95% CI] | Acc. | Catch | AN | AV | AV AN [95% CI] | AN BN | BN | BV | |
| Gemini-3.8 | 4.0 | 0.0 | 48.0 | 5/6 | 62.0 | 65.3 | 2.0 | 2.0 | ||||
| Gemini-3.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0 | 4/6 | 58.0 | 64.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | ||||
| MiMo-2.6-Pro | 4.0 | 0.0 | 48.0 | 5/6 | 62.0 | 66.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | ||||
| MiMo-2.6-Flash | 2.0 | 2.0 | 50.0 | 6/6 | 60.0 | 62.0 | 0.0 | 4.0 | ||||
| Doubao-2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 50.0 | 6/6 | 56.0 | 52.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | ||||
| Acoustic sensitivity (pp) | Lexical sensitivity (pp) | |||||||
| Model | MMLU-Pro | GPQA | IFEval | MATH-500 | MMLU-Pro | GPQA | IFEval | MATH-500 |
| Gemini-3.8 | ||||||||
| Gemini-3.1 | ||||||||
| MiMo-2.6-Pro | ||||||||
| MiMo-2.6-Flash | ||||||||
| Doubao-2.0 | ||||||||
| (a) Open label set: (%) | |||
| Model | BN | BV | BV BN [95% CI] |
| Gemini-3.8 | 1 | 0 | |
| MiMo-2.6-Pro | 0 | 2 | |
| Qwen-2.5 | MiMo-Audio | |||
| Representation | Middle layer | Last layer | Middle layer | Last layer |
| Audio side | ||||
| Audio side, residualized | ||||
| LLM, audio tokens | ||||
| LLM, audio tokens, residualized | ||||
| LLM, answer position | ||||
| (a) emotion2vec top label (% of clips) | |||||
| Voice | neutral | happy | angry | other | |
| Neutral | 85.4 | 7.4 | 1.8 | 5.4 | 706 |
| Frustrated | 82.3 | 7.2 | 3.7 | 6.8 | 706 |
| Response length (words) | Conciliatory markers (% of responses) | |||||
| Model | BN | Vocal | Wording | BN | Vocal | Wording |
| Gemini-3.8 | 144 | 4.5 | ||||
| Gemini-3.1 | 181 | 5.6 | ||||
| MiMo-2.6-Pro | 133 | 5.6 | ||||
| MiMo-2.6-Flash | 141 | 3.4 | ||||
| Doubao-2.0 | 289 | 4.5 | ||||
Audio-Language Model Evaluation
Audio-language model evaluation tests whether systems understand speech, music, and environmental sound reliably, fairly, and with evidence grounded in audio.
See all 215 papers