cs.SDNov 2, 2026

Voice-Native LLMs Hear Frustration but Do Not Listen to It

Authors: Hanjun Luo, Yuhan Lu, Hanan Salam

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

Appendix figures & tables16 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Explore similar work

Aug 28, 2026

VocalAffectBench: Evaluating Vocal Emotion Recognition in AI Audio Models

Voice products increasingly need affective cues that are present in speech but absent from transcripts. We introduce VocalAffectBench, a public, test-only benchmark for evaluating whether AI audio models can identify expressed vocal emotion from raw audio. The benchmark contains 273 human-recorded English WAV clips from 51 speaker accounts totaling 1.95 hours across seven labels: angry, disgusted, fearful, happy, neutral, sad, and surprised, with 39 clips per class. All baselines are evaluated from audio alone, without transcripts or contextual metadata. Across six released baselines, average accuracy is 35.5%. The strongest baseline, gemini_3_5_flash, reaches 46.5% on the seven-way task, above the 14.3% random baseline but far from robust emotion recognition. A secondary valence-bucket analysis maps labels into positive, neutral, and negative classes, excluding surprised because its valence is ambiguous. Aggregate accuracy under this coarser view is 50.9%. Performance is highly uneven across classes. By recall, neutral is identified most reliably at 75.6% averaged across baselines, while surprised and fearful reach only 10.7% and 15.4%, respectively. These results show that the evaluated baselines can extract some affective signal from speech, but discrete expressed-emotion recognition remains fragile, especially for non-neutral emotions that are often most important in voice agent workflows.
Sep 28, 2026

HEAR: Real Voices, Real Bias: A Large-Scale Human-Recorded, Demographically Diverse Benchmark for Audio Language Models

We introduce HEAR (Human-recorded Evaluation of Audio-LLM bias by Real speakers), a large-scale, ecologically valid benchmark comprising 87k real human audio samples from 843 demographically diverse participants. HEAR enables comprehensive evaluation through Multiple Choice Question Answering (MCQA) and open-ended long-form tasks. To our knowledge, this is the first large-scale voice benchmark grounded entirely in authentic human speech. We evaluate model behavior across both real-time speech-to-speech and speech-to-text architectures. Our results reveal that voice-conditioned bias is a model-specific property. Furthermore, we demonstrate that personalization instructions consistently exacerbate demographic disparities. Our findings establish that voice bias is a controllable model characteristic, providing a foundational framework for future bias mitigation and evaluation in Audio-LLM development.
Oct 19, 2026

Text Dominance in Paralinguistic Conflict: Tracing Suppression Through Audio LLM Circuits

Audio LLMs deployed in settings such as crisis hotlines and customer support are only useful beyond speech-to-text pipelines if they use acoustic cues rather than the transcript alone. We test whether they prioritise transcript content over paralinguistic cues (emotion, speaker identity, sarcasm) and trace the mechanism when they do. Across six audio LLMs under LISTEN-style conflict conditions, the mean text-dominance rate on mismatched text+audio items is 0.78 (0.86 excluding sarcasm). In the most text-dominant screened model, probing shows speaker identity remains linearly decodable at ceiling at the language model's input, so the failure is not perceptual. Back-patching, reported to repair lexical text dominance, has no measurable effect here; but it also fails on its own source task in our replication (n=300), so we treat its null as uninformative rather than as evidence of non-transfer. Attention knockout partially restores audio-grounded output by blocking the claim from propagating through intermediate tokens during open-ended generation, whereas blocking the answer position's direct connection to the conflicting claim has no effect. The claim's influence therefore travels through an intermediate relay rather than a single severable edge. The effect appears only in free-form generation and not in closed-set multiple choice, suggesting that benchmarks relying on that format may be systematically blind to interventions of this kind. Code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/AdvayRoongta/audio-llm-mech-interp.