A Reliability Assessment of LALM Audio Judges for Full-Duplex Voice Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.07985v1
• Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2026 23:24:55 GMT
• Title: A Reliability Assessment of LALM Audio Judges for Full-Duplex Voice Agents
• Abstract summary: 2.5 Flash, 3.5 Flash, and 3.1 Pro are tested across three models in Gemini family.<n>Our primary evidence base uses Gemini 2.5 Flash ground-truth model validated against three human raters.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We report the empirical reliability of Gemini models as audio judges that score full-duplex agent conversations directly from the raw stereo waveform, tested across three models in the Gemini family: 2.5 Flash, 3.5 Flash, and 3.1 Pro. Our primary evidence base uses Gemini 2.5 Flash as the ground-truth model, validated against three calibrated human raters on 209 stereo sessions, scored on 8 production dimensions: 152 full-duplex conversations across 13 accent-and-condition strata, together with 57 adversarial defect-injected clips. The evidence for Gemini 2.5 Flash is consistent across three tests. (i) On 5 of 8 dimensions the LALM-human Spearman rho departs from the pairwise human-human rho by at most 0.07, and on 7 of 8 dimensions the two quantities 95 percent bootstrap confidence intervals overlap. (ii) The LALM agrees with the three-rater human mean within 1 point on 60 to 92 percent of sessions on 6 of 8 dimensions. (iii) On 45 of 48 (defect, dimension) cells the LALM is as sensitive as humans or better under Newcombe-Wilson 95 percent confidence intervals, though most of these are underpowered nulls rather than demonstrated parity. Rank-ordering ability transfers across the Gemini family: 3.5 Flash improves simple agreement to 8 of 8 dimensions, while 3.1 Pro rates several dimensions markedly lower than humans despite comparable rank correlation. A model swap should be re-validated on calibration specifically, not assumed from rank-correlation alone. We identify four areas where deployment requires care, and we estimate that human rating alone for our current evaluation cadence costs roughly two orders of magnitude more than the equivalent LALM workload. The data presented here provides a defensible empirical basis for deploying the LALM as a substitute or fourth rater on the dimensions where the evidence supports it.

Related papers

• Marginal Fidelity Does Not Establish User Simulation in Demographic Synthetic Survey Panels: Response Contracts, Support Collapse and Conditioning Failure [51.736723807086385]
  Population-marginal agreement is evidence about an elicitation contract and an estimand obtainable without simulated respondents, not evidence of individual simulation.<n>On nine aligned model-battery pairs, a no-persona population-prevalence query averages 6.27 MAE versus 12.39 for committed panels and wins all nine comparisons.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-07T10:22:22Z)
• K-Bench: measuring model performance on real scientific agent requests [0.0]
  K-Bench 01 is an evaluation built from first-turn requests sampled from live user traffic on K-Dense Web.<n>Three blinded language-model judges scored every run against an eight-dimension rubric.<n>Across all 39,934 scored judgments, 47.6% fall below the 8-point threshold.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-21T20:06:08Z)
• Wisdom Of The (AI) Crowd: Investigating Artificial Swarm Intelligence In Large Language Models [0.0]
  We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can approximate swarm intelligence effects through artificial swarms.<n>We conducted a controlled experiment with 960 manually executed prompts across three proprietary models.<n>Results reveal consistent error reduction through intra- and inter-model aggregation, with significant error reductions up to 37 percentage points in MAPE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-30T09:30:53Z)
• AgentFairBench: Do LLM Agents Discriminate When They Act? [2.3004655342211078]
  AgentFairBench is a cheap, reproducible, multi-domain benchmark for demographic disparity in the actions of LLM agents.<n>It spans three regulator-anchored domains: hiring, lending, and medical triage.<n>A NumPy-only harness computes counterfactual flip rate, mean absolute score difference (MASD), action-rate disparity, and tool-invocation disparity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-15T13:50:26Z)
• Knowledge Index of Noah's Ark [63.143852586221534]
  We introduce KINA, an 899-item benchmark across 261 fine-grained disciplines.<n>We prove a bonus-on-bar tournament weakly FOSD-dominates flat payment in released-review quality.<n>The top model, Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview, reaches 53.17%, followed by Claude-Opus-4.6 at 49.92% and GPT-5.4 at 48.55%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T17:06:49Z)
• Lightweight Complementary-Cue Fusion for Robust Video Face Forgery Detection [16.800905609731178]
  We show that a single, lightweight fusion of two handcrafted cues can achieve higher accuracy with a much smaller model.<n>Based on the Xception baseline model, we build two detectors: LFWS, which adds a 1x1 convolution to combine a low-frequency Wavelet-Denoised Feature (WDF) with a phase-spectrum channel.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-27T20:51:04Z)
• Let the Results Speak: A Replication-First Paradigm for LLM Behavioral Benchmarking [22.825786049667602]
  We propose a replication-first paradigm to anchor validity to a single human-rater consensus.<n>We certify the instrument via four properties -- reliability across K runs, cross-instrument replication across architecturally distinct judges, historical-footprint calibration via judges from earlier training cohorts, and pre-registered prediction.<n>We test it on emotional accompaniment by letting the self-evolve data-driven across: the dimensions are not pre-stipulated and the procedure stabilizes to a 9-dimension set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-27T03:41:11Z)
• Perception or Prejudice: Can MLLMs Go Beyond First Impressions of Personality? [74.69723255239663]
  Grounded Personality Reasoning requires MLLMs to anchor each Big Five rating in observable evidence through a chain of rating, reasoning, and grounding.<n> MM-OCEAN is produced by a multi-agent pipeline with human verification, with timestamped behavioral observations, evidence-grounded trait analyses, and seven categories of cue-grounding MCQs.<n>The analysis uncovers a striking Prejudice Gap: across the field, 51% of correct ratings are not grounded in retrieved cues, and the Holistic-Grounding Rate spans only 0-33.5%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-21T07:42:47Z)
• Putting HUMANS first: Efficient LAM Evaluation with Human Preference Alignment [53.72927532626824]
  We show that subsets of just 50 examples (0.3% of data) can achieve over 0.93 Pearson correlation with full benchmark scores.<n>To better predict preferences, we trained regression models on these selected subsets, achieving 0.98 correlation.<n>This demonstrates that in regression modeling, well-curated subsets outpredict the full benchmark, showing quality over quantity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-20T00:57:31Z)
• The Evaluation Blind Spot: A Stereological Theory of Benchmark Coverage for Large Language Models [0.0]
  Empirically, three independent leaderboards (Open LLM v2, an extended 12-benchmark suite, LiveBench) all have d_eff in [2.86, 4.80] on their competitive frontier.<n>A submodular greedy algorithm with the Nemhauser (1 - 1/e) guarantee finds a stable core of 4 benchmarks.<n>A counterfactual validation across 12 internal benchmarks and 27 categories confirms that the eigenstructure predicts which evaluations are irreplaceable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-15T08:56:58Z)
• Evaluating & Reducing Deceptive Dialogue From Language Models with Multi-turn RL [64.3268313484078]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) interact with millions of people worldwide in applications such as customer support, education and healthcare.<n>Their ability to produce deceptive outputs, whether intentionally or inadvertently, poses significant safety concerns.<n>We investigate the extent to which LLMs engage in deception within dialogue, and propose the belief misalignment metric to quantify deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T05:29:36Z)
• MMMOS: Multi-domain Multi-axis Audio Quality Assessment [49.48516314472825]
  Existing non-intrusive assessment models predict a single Mean Opinion Score (MOS) for speech.<n>We propose MMMOS, a no-reference, multi-domain audio quality assessment system that estimates four axes: Production Quality, Production Complexity, Content Enjoyment, and Content Usefulness.<n> MMMOS shows a 20-30% reduction in mean squared error and a 4-5% increase in Kendall's tau versus baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-05T16:42:09Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.