SAM Audio Judge: A Unified Multimodal Framework for Perceptual Evaluation of Audio Separation

Helin Wang; Bowen Shi; Andros Tjandra; John Hoffman; Yi-Chiao Wu; Apoorv Vyas; Najim Dehak; Ann Lee; Wei-Ning Hsu

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2601.19702

SAM Audio Judge: A Unified Multimodal Framework for Perceptual Evaluation of Audio Separation

Helin Wang·Bowen Shi·Andros Tjandra·John Hoffman·Yi-Chiao Wu·Apoorv Vyas·Najim Dehak·Ann Lee·Wei-Ning Hsu

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The performance evaluation remains a complex challenge in audio separation, and existing evaluation metrics are often misaligned with human perception, course-grained, relying on ground truth signals. On the other hand, subjective listening tests remain the gold standard for real-world evaluation, but they are expensive, time-consuming, and difficult to scale. This paper addresses the growing need for automated systems capable of evaluating audio separation without human intervention. The proposed evaluation metric, SAM Audio Judge (SAJ), is a multimodal fine-grained reference-free objective metric, which shows highly alignment with human perceptions. SAJ supports three audio domains (speech, music and general sound events) and three prompt inputs (text, visual and span), covering four different dimensions of evaluation (recall, percision, faithfulness, and overall). SAM Audio Judge also shows potential applications in data filtering, pseudo-labeling large datasets and reranking in audio separation models. We release our code and pre-trained models at: https://github.com/facebookresearch/sam-audio.

Explore related subjects

eess.AS cs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Helin Wang, Bowen Shi, Andros Tjandra, John Hoffman, Yi-Chiao Wu, Apoorv Vyas, Najim Dehak, Ann Lee, Wei-Ning Hsu. 2026-01-27. SAM Audio Judge: A Unified Multimodal Framework for Perceptual Evaluation of Audio Separation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.19702

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

LLMs and Speech: Integration vs. Combination

In this work, we study different approaches to utilize large language models (LLMs) for automatic speech recognition (ASR). Specifically, we compare the tight integration of an acoustic model (AM) with the LLM ("speech LLM") to the traditional way of combining AM and LLM via shallow fusion and provide ablations on the effect of different label units and LLM sizes. For tight integration, we further examine the effect of attention interfaces, encoder downsampling, and length normalization. Furthermore, we investigate joint recognition with a CTC model to mitigate hallucinations of speech LLMs and present effective optimizations. We train and evaluate on LibriSpeech and Loquacious and additionally evaluate on the HuggingFace ASR leaderboard. Across model sizes, we find that shallow fusion consistently outperforms tight integration of AM and LLM on in-domain data, highlighting the importance of strong shallow-fusion baselines when evaluating speech LLMs for ASR. On the more heterogeneous HuggingFace ASR leaderboard, however, the integrated prefix LLM achieves lower average WER than shallow fusion, with gains concentrated on out-of-domain corpora.

eess.AS↗

arXiv2026

Vaani Benchmark V1.0: An Inclusive Multimodal Benchmark Dataset for Hindi

Benchmarking is critical for the systematic evaluation of machine learning systems. While several open-source datasets are available for Hindi, existing benchmarks remain limited in terms of modality, geographic diversity, demographic representation, and transcription robustness. We introduce an inclusive, multimodal Hindi benchmark dataset collected from 102 districts across India. The dataset consists of spontaneous speech elicited using image prompts and recorded under real-world acoustic conditions across diverse demographic groups. Each audio segment is associated with the image prompt that elicited it and is annotated with three independent transcriptions, enabling multi-reference evaluation that accounts for permissible orthographic and lexical variations. We show that single-reference evaluation overstates errors, while multi-reference evaluation provides a more robust, inclusive, and realistic assessment of automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems. The pairing of each utterance with its eliciting image further enables image retrieval evaluation using both speech and text queries. We evaluate multiple multimodal embedding models for image retrieval and report their performance on the combined speech--image and text--image retrieval tasks. The results reveal a performance gap between text-based and audio-based retrieval, with text-based retrieval consistently achieving higher performance.

eess.AS↗

arXiv2026

Cover First, Disagree Softly: Rethinking Mismatch-First Active Learning for Frame-Level Audio Classification

Sound event detection relies on frame-level strong labels whose annotation is expensive. Active learning addresses this problem by selecting the audio segments whose labels help the classifier most. One of the prevailing acquisition strategies for this task, mismatch-first farthest-traversal (MFFT), combines the disagreement between two classifiers and the diversity of the selected segments through hard sequential decisions. It selects whole groups of high-disagreement segments first and spreads only the remaining budget by farthest traversal. On two multi-label datasets we show that this design is blind to the similarity among the selected segments and fails under low budgets, with every mismatch-first variant ending below the plain geometric strategy it builds on. We propose mismatch-weighted facility location (MW-FL), which spends the entire budget through a disagreement-weighted coverage objective that penalizes similarity among the selected segments. The disagreement signal from MFFT is used to obtain the nonnegative weights of this facility-location objective, using fixed smoothing without dataset-specific tuning. Experiments across two geometric mechanisms with three ways of using disagreement show that coverage of the selected segments is the dominant factor, hard disagreement gating of selection is harmful on both mechanisms, and soft disagreement weighting helps on top of coverage. MW-FL attains the best area under the learning curve on both datasets.

eess.AS↗