mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Can Foundation Models Hear What Made That Sound? A Tiered Benchmark of Audio-Language Models and Traditional Classifiers for Closed-Set Sound Source Identification

arXiv 2608.02397 ↗First posted 3 Aug 2026cs.SD cs.AIcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We benchmark eleven audio classification methods: five task-aware closed-set LLMs (four Gemini models plus open-weight Kimi-Audio-7B-Instruct), four fixed-vocabulary taggers (YAMNet, PANNs, Whisper-AT, and SSLAM), a zero-shot audio-text model (CLAP), and an audio-grounded LLM (BAT). We evaluate them on a closed-set sound-source identification task over 2,242 clips spanning 23 fine-grained classes and 11 categories. Since these methods differ fundamentally in how they receive the task and how outputs are scored, we group them into four evaluation tiers rather than one leaderboard, reporting macro Precision, Recall, F1, and false-negative rate per tier. The best model, Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview, reaches 85.6 percent category-level F1 and 56.7 percent fine-grained F1. Kimi-Audio is competitive for its size, reaching 67.5 percent category-level F1 and 32.9 percent fine-grained F1, but fails to answer 1.6 percent of samples. SSLAM and CLAP match or exceed the best closed-set model at the category level without seeing the candidate list, but fall behind at the fine-grained level. Analyzing the Gemini models' chain-of-thought across 8,968 responses, we find that response length does not predict accuracy, an apparent "holistic judgment beats detailed analysis" effect is better explained as a difficulty confound, and wrong answers are stated confidently 92 to 100 percent of the time. We report full per-class confusion matrices and metrics for all eleven methods, identify the structural error modes behind most of the accuracy loss between granularities, and give practical guidance for choosing among these method families.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 12 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Aug 2026.

Builds on

8 of 12 references.

References · 8

  1. 2016CNN Architectures for Large-Scale Audio Classificationcited by 701
  2. 2019PANNs: Large-Scale Pretrained Audio Neural Networks for Audio Pattern Recognitioncited by 563
  3. 2023Listen, Think, and Understandcited by 206
  4. 2023Whisper-AT: Noise-Robust Automatic Speech Recognizers are Also Strong General Audio Event Taggerscited by 72
  5. 2023Natural Language Supervision for General-Purpose Audio Representationscited by 60
  6. 2024BAT: Learning to Reason about Spatial Sounds with Large Language Modelscited by 34
  7. 2019End-to-End Environmental Sound Classification using a 1D Convolutional Neural Networkcited by 20
  8. 2025SSLAM: Enhancing Self-Supervised Models with Audio Mixtures for Polyphonic Soundscapescited by 16

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Kimi-Audio Technical Report
  2. 2026AudioCapBench: Quick Evaluation on Audio Captioning across Sound, Music, and Speech
  3. 2024DASB - Discrete Audio and Speech Benchmark
  4. 2025BLAB: Brutally Long Audio Bench
  5. 2025Thinking While Listening: Simple Test Time Scaling For Audio Classification
  6. 2024Can Large Audio-Language Models Truly Hear? Tackling Hallucinations with Multi-Task Assessment and Stepwise Audio Reasoning
  7. 2024Synthio: Augmenting Small-Scale Audio Classification Datasets with Synthetic Data
  8. 2024DASS: Distilled Audio State Space Models Are Stronger and More Duration-Scalable Learners