Papers for

voice user interface designers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Audio language models struggle to detect pain from speech tones

Do Audio LLMs HEAR Pain? Tracing Acoustic Evidence from Speech to Language Reasoning

Abstract: Large audio language models (LALMs) can process speech directly, but it remains unclear how well they use the non-lexical acoustic information that speech carries. We study this question through pain, using TAME-Pain, which contains pain-neutral Harvard sentences and spoken pain ratings recorded at different self-reported pain levels. We introduce HEAR, a four-stage diagnostic framework that traces pain-related information from the speech signal to the model's prediction, and apply it to seven closed-source and open-weight LALMs. On the Harvard sentences, where pain can only be inferred from the voice, all models perform at chance level, and same-speaker references or few-shot examples improve balanced accuracy by no more than six points. On the spoken ratings, the same models reach 87.5-99.7% balanced accuracy. Layer-wise probing of open-weight LALMs shows that pain can be decoded from early audio representations (74.1% balanced accuracy for binary prediction and 45.0% for three-class severity), but that this information, along with most pain-associated acoustic cues, decreases in deeper layers. In an acoustic perception test, weaker models cannot distinguish even large changes in these cues, whereas stronger models can but still fail to infer pain. Finally, we recover pain-related acoustic cues and directly reinject them as structured text into the prompt, which improves pairwise pain prediction by up to 32 points. These results indicate that current LALMs encode paralinguistic information in early layers that is largely unavailable when the model produces its answer.

Wed 28 OctComputation and LanguageArtificial IntelligenceSound
The gist
This study looks at how well special AI models that listen to speech can recognize when someone sounds like they are in pain. The researchers found these models have trouble figuring out pain just from how words sound, doing only a little better than guessing. The models can detect pain when people speak ratings about their pain, but the information about pain fades deeper into the model’s thinking process. When the researchers gave the models clear clues about pain as text, the models did much better at recognizing it.
Open → 2610.38570v1

Text alone predicts speech style mainly through word choice

Can Prosodic Style Be Inferred from Text Alone? Evidence from Unsupervised Acoustic Clusters

Abstract: Much of expressive text-to-speech research rests on an untested assumption that written text carries enough information to select an appropriate prosodic style for its delivery. Text-predicted style models improve listener preference, and expressive-appropriateness evaluation presupposes that context constrains style, yet neither measures the assumption itself. This paper tests it as a falsifiable hypothesis against style labels derived from acoustics alone. For each of six speakers in a 1,200-hour conversational corpus, utterances are clustered in the spaces of five speech models, including a prosody-only control, and the cluster of held-out utterances is predicted from twelve text embedding models. Three controls are applied: utterance length is erased from the speech embeddings; accuracy is scored against the majority-class floor of unbalanced clusters rather than uniform chance; and a bag-of-words baseline measures word identity alone. Text predicts the cluster above that floor for all six speakers (+0.111 top-3 accuracy), but bag-of-words achieves three quarters of this. Sentence embeddings add only +0.026, largest for encoders not trained for sentence semantics and reversed by tree-based probes for all others. Acoustic clusters are not compact in text embedding space in any of 360 configurations. The prosody-only space weakens the association for five speakers, but not for the speaker showing it most strongly. Text thus informs these delivery clusters mainly through word choice, whether as a cue to prosody or as a marker of topic and recording situation, and reference-free style selection cannot assume more.

Sun 4 OctComputation and LanguageArtificial Intelligence
The gist
This paper looks at whether just the words in a sentence can tell us how it should be spoken expressively. The researchers grouped spoken sentences by style using sounds alone, then tried to predict these groups from the text. They found that text predicts speech style somewhat, but mostly because of the specific words used, not deeper text features. This means just text isn’t enough to fully know how something should sound when read aloud.
Open → 2610.05575v1

Instruction supervision stability improves talking AI voice style control

Stabilizing Instruction Supervision for Instruct-TTS via Controllable Diversification and Drift Filtering

Abstract: Instruct-TTS systems expand structured style labels into natural-language training instructions through LLM rewriting, yet we find that over 40% of unconstrained rewrites contain semantic drift that corrupts supervision and weakens generalization. We formalize this problem as instruction supervision instability and propose a data-centric stabilization recipe that jointly improves coverage and fidelity through three mechanisms: controllable instruction diversification for systematic expansion, LLM-based drift filtering for quality control, and attribute-aligned supervision that grounds prosody control in acoustic perturbations. On the Chinese split of InstructTTSEval, our recipe raises instruction-following from 34.5% without fine-tuning and 51.0% with naive fine-tuning to 56.4%, while constrained rewriting reduces drift from 40.4% to 15.4%. Ablations confirm the three mechanisms are complementary, and the drift taxonomy may generalize to instruction-driven generation beyond TTS.

Tue 8 SeptSound
The gist
Spoken text-to-speech systems that follow style instructions can have trouble understanding those instructions correctly. The authors found that when instructions are rewritten by large language models, more than 40% changed the meaning too much. They fixed this by diversifying instructions in a controlled way, filtering out bad rewrites using AI, and aligning voice features with these instructions. This approach helped the system follow instructions better and made the voice sound more natural.
Open → 2609.08204v1