CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 207Speech Recognition and SynthesisMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsMusic and Audio Processing

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

AIR-Bench: Benchmarking Large Audio-Language Models via Generative Comprehension

Open access
Yang, Qian, Xu, Jin, Liu, Wenrui, Chu, Yunfei, Jiang, Ziyue, Zhou, Xiaohuan, Leng, Yichong, Lv, Yuanjun, Zhao, Zhou, Zhou, Chang, Zhou, Jingren·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2402.07729arXiv 2402.07729
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Recently, instruction-following audio-language models have received broad attention for human-audio interaction. However, the absence of benchmarks capable of evaluating audio-centric interaction capabilities has impeded advancements in this field. Previous models primarily focus on assessing different fundamental tasks, such as Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR), and lack an assessment of the open-ended generative capabilities centered around audio. Thus, it is challenging to track the progression in the Large Audio-Language Models (LALMs) domain and to provide guidance for future improvement. In this paper, we introduce AIR-Bench (\textbf{A}udio \textbf{I}nst\textbf{R}uction \textbf{Bench}mark), the first benchmark designed to evaluate the ability of LALMs to understand various types of audio signals (including human speech, natural sounds, and music), and furthermore, to interact with humans in the textual format. AIR-Bench encompasses two dimensions: \textit{foundation} and \textit{chat} benchmarks. The former consists of 19 tasks with approximately 19k single-choice questions, intending to inspect the basic single-task ability of LALMs. The latter one contains 2k instances of open-ended question-and-answer data, directly assessing the comprehension of the model on complex audio and its capacity to follow instructions. Both benchmarks require the model to generate hypotheses directly. We design a unified framework that leverages advanced language models, such as GPT-4, to evaluate the scores of generated hypotheses given the meta-information of the audio. Experimental results demonstrate a high level of consistency between GPT-4-based evaluation and human evaluation. By revealing the limitations of existing LALMs through evaluation results, AIR-Bench can provide insights into the direction of future research.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2402.07729

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 207

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Yang, Q., Xu, J., Liu, W., Chu, Y., Jiang, Z., Zhou, X., Leng, Y., Lv, Y., Zhao, Z., Zhou, C., & Zhou, J.
Affiliations
  • Zhejiang University (CN)
  • Alibaba Group (China) (CN)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2402.07729
arXiv
2402.07729
OpenAlex
W4391799385
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech Recognition and Synthesis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Music and Audio Processing
Keywords
large audio language models, benchmarking, listening comprehension, instruction following, audio understanding, hypothesis generation, open-ended question answering

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review