Evaluation of Audio Language Models for Fairness, Safety, and Security
This addresses the problem of inconsistent evaluations for researchers and developers in audio AI, though it is incremental as it builds on existing evaluation methods.
The paper tackled the fragmented evaluation of fairness, safety, and security in audio large language models by introducing a structural taxonomy and unified framework, finding systematic differences in refusal rates, attack success, and toxicity between audio and text inputs.
Audio large language models (ALLMs) have recently advanced spoken interaction by integrating speech processing with large language models. However, existing evaluations of fairness, safety, and security (FSS) remain fragmented, largely because ALLMs differ fundamentally in how acoustic information is represented and where semantic reasoning occurs. Differences that are rarely made explicit. As a result, evaluations often conflate structurally distinct systems, obscuring the relationship between model design and observed FSS behavior. In this work, we introduce a structural taxonomy (system-level and representational) of ALLMs that categorizes systems along two axes: the form of audio input representation (e.g., discrete vs. continuous) and the locus of semantic reasoning (e.g., cascaded, multimodal, or audio-native). Building on the taxonomy, we propose a unified evaluation framework that assesses semantic invariance under paralinguistic variation, refusal and toxicity behavior under unsafe prompts, and robustness to adversarial audio perturbations. We apply this framework to two representative systems and observe systematic differences in refusal rates, attack success, and toxicity between audio and text inputs. Our findings demonstrate that FSS behavior is tightly coupled to how acoustic information is integrated into semantic reasoning, underscoring the need for structure-aware evaluation of audio language models.