Laya Iyer

Laya Iyer, Angelina Wang, Sanmi Koyejo

Advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled significant capabilities in audio processing, resulting in state-of-the-art models now known as Large Audio Language Models (LALMs). However, minimal work has been done to measure audio understanding beyond automatic speech recognition (ASR). This paper closes that gap by proposing a benchmark suite, SCENEBench (Spatial, Cross-lingual, Environmental, Non-speech Evaluation), that targets a broad form of audio comprehension across four real-world categories: background sound understanding, noise localization, cross-linguistic speech understanding, and vocal characterizer recognition. These four categories are selected based on understudied needs from accessibility technology and industrial noise monitoring. In addition to performance, we also measure model latency. The purpose of this benchmark suite is to assess audio beyond just what words are said - rather, how they are said and the non-speech components of the audio. Because our audio samples are synthetically constructed (e.g., by overlaying two natural audio samples), we further validate our benchmark against 20 natural audio items per task, sub-sampled from existing datasets to match our task criteria, to assess ecological validity. We assess five state-of-the-art LALMs and find critical gaps: performance varies across tasks, with some tasks performing below random chance and others achieving high accuracy. These results provide direction for targeted improvements in model capabilities.

Laya Iyer, Kriti Aggarwal, Sanmi Koyejo et al.

Supportive conversation depends on skills that go beyond language fluency, including reading emotions, adjusting tone, and navigating moments of resistance, frustration, or distress. Despite rapid progress in language models, we still lack a clear way to understand how their abilities in these interpersonal domains compare to those of humans. We introduce HEART, the first-ever framework that directly compares humans and LLMs on the same multi-turn emotional-support conversations. For each dialogue history, we pair human and model responses and evaluate them through blinded human raters and an ensemble of LLM-as-judge evaluators. All assessments follow a rubric grounded in interpersonal communication science across five dimensions: Human Alignment, Empathic Responsiveness, Attunement, Resonance, and Task-Following. HEART uncovers striking behavioral patterns. Several frontier models approach or surpass the average human responses in perceived empathy and consistency. At the same time, humans maintain advantages in adaptive reframing, tension-naming, and nuanced tone shifts, particularly in adversarial turns. Human and LLM-as-judge preferences align on about 80 percent of pairwise comparisons, matching inter-human agreement, and their written rationales emphasize similar HEART dimensions. This pattern suggests an emerging convergence in the criteria used to assess supportive quality. By placing humans and models on equal footing, HEART reframes supportive dialogue as a distinct capability axis, separable from general reasoning or linguistic fluency. It provides a unified empirical foundation for understanding where model-generated support aligns with human social judgment, where it diverges, and how affective conversational competence scales with model size.

Laya Iyer, Pranav Somani, Alice Guo et al.

The next-token prediction (NTP) objective has been foundational in the development of modern large language models (LLMs), driving advances in fluency and generalization. However, NTP operates at the \textit{token} level, treating deviations from a single reference continuation as errors even when alternative continuations are equally plausible or semantically equivalent (e.g., ``mom'' vs. ``mother''). As a result, token-level loss can penalize valid abstractions, paraphrases, or conceptually correct reasoning paths, biasing models toward surface form rather than underlying meaning. This mismatch between the training signal and semantic correctness motivates learning objectives that operate over higher-level representations. We propose a shift from token-level to concept-level prediction, where concepts group multiple surface forms of the same idea (e.g., ``mom,'' ``mommy,'' ``mother'' $\rightarrow$ \textit{MOTHER}). We introduce various methods for integrating conceptual supervision into LLM training and show that concept-aware models achieve lower perplexity, improved robustness under domain shift, and stronger performance than NTP-based models on diverse NLP benchmarks. This suggests \textit{concept-level supervision} as an improved training signal that better aligns LLMs with human semantic abstractions.