pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.17417 · v1 · pith:DICFML53new · submitted 2026-06-16 · 💻 cs.SD · cs.LG

A Closer Look at Failure Modes in Temporal Understanding of Large Audio-Language Models

Apoorva Kulkarni , Kaousheik Jayakumar , Sreyan Ghosh , Sarah Wiegreffe , Dinesh Manocha , Ramani Duraiswami This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 23:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SD cs.LG
keywords audioattentionacrossanalysisfailuresmodelstemporalunderstanding
0
0 comments X

The pith

Scaling attention at bottleneck layers improves large audio-language models' temporal reasoning accuracy from 55.9% to 59.1% without fine-tuning.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a benchmark of 1,657 questions across three tasks to examine why large audio-language models fail at temporal reasoning. Behavioral tests reveal that models under-use audio inputs when text cues are present. Mechanistic tests show that redistributing attention across audio tokens works better than simply increasing audio attention, and scaling attention at bottleneck layers produces measurable gains. This points to attention distribution rather than modality imbalance as a key issue in temporal understanding.

Core claim

The authors establish that temporal reasoning failures in large audio-language models arise because models under-utilize audio when textual cues are available, and that redistributing attention across audio tokens is more effective than increasing audio attention. Targeting task-relevant tokens adds further gains. Attention scaling at bottleneck layers raises accuracy from 55.9% to 59.1% on the new benchmark without fine-tuning, showing that modality imbalance alone does not explain the failures.

What carries the argument

Attention scaling at bottleneck layers, which redistributes attention weights across audio tokens to emphasize task-relevant information.

If this is right

  • Models often under-utilize audio when textual cues are available.
  • Redistributing attention across audio tokens is more effective than increasing audio attention.
  • Targeting task-relevant tokens yields further gains.
  • Modality imbalance alone cannot explain failures.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Attention adjustments at specific layers might improve reasoning in other multimodal settings such as video or speech.
  • The benchmark could be adapted to diagnose temporal issues in models outside the audio domain.
  • Scaling interventions may generalize to larger models or different tasks without retraining.
  • keywords:[

Load-bearing premise

The 1,657-question benchmark isolates temporal reasoning failures and cannot be solved via textual shortcuts or non-temporal cues.

What would settle it

If attention scaling at bottleneck layers produces no accuracy gain on a modified benchmark that removes temporal elements while keeping the same format and text cues, the claim that the intervention targets temporal reasoning would not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.17417 by Apoorva Kulkarni, Dinesh Manocha, Kaousheik Jayakumar, Ramani Duraiswami, Sarah Wiegreffe, Sreyan Ghosh.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example questions from the three temporal reasoning tasks with event timelines. Sound events may repeat or overlap, reflecting natural acoustic variation in real-world audio. Correct answers are highlighted. Earliest Onset (EO) Latest Offset (LO) Longest Duration (LD) Model AQA CQA ACQA AQA CQA ACQA AQA CQA ACQA Qwen2-Audio-7B-Instruct 30.87 63.64 63.64 28.06 46.49 46.49 32.54 58.89 58.89 Kimi-Audio-7B-Ins… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Layer-wise attention distribution between audio and text modalities for Audio-Flamingo-3 for Earliest Onset (EO) task. Other models and tasks also exhibit similar text-dominant attention patterns. token to all audio tokens: A˜ (ℓ,h) n,j = ( A (ℓ,h) n,j + α [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Layer-wise scaling effect on accuracy. Audio￾Flamingo-3 (top figure) exhibits peak improvement at Layer 20. DeSTA-2.5-Audio (bottom figure) shows peak improvement at Layer 9. DeSTA-2.5-Audio shows more distributed effects, with peak improvement at Layer 9 under smoothing (α = 0.2). Aver￾aging across both models, layer-targeted scaling yields a 3.2% improvement in temporal reasoning accuracy. These gains ar… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Large Audio Language Models (LALMs) achieve strong performance on a variety of audio understanding tasks but continue to struggle with temporal reasoning, a fundamental capability central to human auditory perception. Understanding the causes of these failures remains challenging as existing benchmarks report performance gaps without probing underlying mechanisms. To address this, we introduce a benchmark with 1,657 questions across three foundational tasks designed specifically for mechanistic analysis. Examining model outputs across varying input settings (behavioral analysis) reveals that models often under-utilize audio when textual cues are available. We also provide the first causal mechanistic analysis of temporal reasoning failures in LALMs. Comparing attention upweighting against scaling, we find that redistributing attention across audio tokens is more effective than increasing audio attention. Targeting task-relevant tokens yields further gains. These findings suggest that modality imbalance alone cannot explain failures. Attention scaling at bottleneck layers improves accuracy from 55.9% to 59.1% without fine-tuning, demonstrating a promising direction for future work.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a 1,657-question benchmark across three tasks, designed for mechanistic analysis of temporal reasoning failures in Large Audio-Language Models (LALMs). Behavioral analysis shows models under-utilize audio when text cues are present. A causal analysis compares attention upweighting vs. scaling, finding redistribution across audio tokens more effective than increasing audio attention; targeting task-relevant tokens yields gains. Attention scaling at bottleneck layers raises accuracy from 55.9% to 59.1% without fine-tuning, implying modality imbalance alone does not explain the failures.

Significance. If the benchmark isolates temporal reasoning, the work supplies the first causal mechanistic dissection of LALM temporal failures and identifies a simple, training-free intervention. The distinction between redistribution and upweighting, plus the evidence against modality imbalance as sole cause, would be useful for guiding audio model design. The paper supplies behavioral evidence and reports concrete numeric gains from the intervention.

major comments (2)
  1. [Benchmark construction] Benchmark construction section: the manuscript states the benchmark is 'designed specifically for mechanistic analysis' yet reports no audio-removed, audio-scrambled, or text-only controls demonstrating that accuracy collapses without audio or temporal cues. This is load-bearing for the central claim, because the attribution of the 55.9% → 59.1% gain (and the conclusion that modality imbalance is insufficient) rests on the benchmark truly measuring temporal reasoning rather than residual text-only solvability.
  2. [Attention scaling results] Attention scaling results (abstract and § on interventions): the 3.2 pp improvement is reported without statistical tests, variance across runs, or explicit description of how 'bottleneck layers' and scaling factors were chosen or implemented, leaving the causal link between the intervention and temporal mechanisms unverified.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract lists 'three foundational tasks' but does not name them or indicate how they map to the 1,657 questions.
  2. No mention of confidence intervals or multiple-comparison corrections for the reported accuracy figures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address the two major comments below with clarifications and commitments to revisions where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Benchmark construction] Benchmark construction section: the manuscript states the benchmark is 'designed specifically for mechanistic analysis' yet reports no audio-removed, audio-scrambled, or text-only controls demonstrating that accuracy collapses without audio or temporal cues. This is load-bearing for the central claim, because the attribution of the 55.9% → 59.1% gain (and the conclusion that modality imbalance is insufficient) rests on the benchmark truly measuring temporal reasoning rather than residual text-only solvability.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes that the current manuscript does not report explicit audio-removed, scrambled, or text-only control experiments. Our behavioral analysis section does compare model outputs under varying input settings (including reduced audio context), which shows under-utilization of audio when text cues are available, but this falls short of the requested controls. We will add a new subsection with text-only and audio-scrambled baselines for all three tasks in the revised manuscript to quantify the drop in accuracy and better isolate temporal reasoning. This addresses the load-bearing concern directly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Attention scaling results] Attention scaling results (abstract and § on interventions): the 3.2 pp improvement is reported without statistical tests, variance across runs, or explicit description of how 'bottleneck layers' and scaling factors were chosen or implemented, leaving the causal link between the intervention and temporal mechanisms unverified.

    Authors: We agree that the reported 3.2 pp gain lacks statistical tests, run-to-run variance, and implementation details. In revision we will add: (1) standard deviations or standard errors across at least three random seeds, (2) paired statistical tests (e.g., McNemar or t-test) on the accuracy difference, and (3) an expanded methods paragraph specifying how bottleneck layers were identified via attention maps and the exact scaling procedure and factor values used. These additions will make the causal claim verifiable. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in empirical analysis

full rationale

The paper reports direct empirical measurements of LALM behavior on a new 1,657-question benchmark and the accuracy effects of attention interventions (e.g., scaling at bottleneck layers lifting 55.9% to 59.1%). No equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, self-definitional constructs, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described content; the central claims rest on experimental outcomes rather than any derivation that reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Empirical study on existing models; abstract introduces no mathematical axioms, fitted parameters, or new postulated entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5728 in / 1001 out tokens · 42091 ms · 2026-06-26T23:23:14.860418+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Despite strong performance in identi- fying and describing acoustic events, models often struggle to localize events in time or reason about their temporal relation- ships [1, 2]

    Introduction Large Audio Language Models (LALMs) have recently emerged as a key focus in multimodal AI, enabling a wide range of audio-centric tasks. Despite strong performance in identi- fying and describing acoustic events, models often struggle to localize events in time or reason about their temporal relation- ships [1, 2]. These limitations reduce ef...

  2. [2]

    A Closer Look at Failure Modes in Temporal Understanding of Large Audio-Language Models

    Related Work LALM Benchmarks and Temporal Reasoning.Temporal reasoning has emerged as a key challenge for LALMs. Bench- marks such as MMAU [3], MMAU-Pro [5], and MMAR [4] as- sess overall audio understanding across diverse tasks, with tem- poral reasoning as one component. Yao et al. [1] systematically analyze how temporal reasoning varies with audio char...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    Each audio clip also includes a weak caption that provides general audio description

    Dataset and Task Construction We evaluate temporal reasoning using three controlled multiple- choice QA tasks derived from TACOS [12], which provides temporally aligned audio segments with precise onset and off- set annotations paired with textual descriptions. Each audio clip also includes a weak caption that provides general audio description. TACOS is ...

  4. [4]

    We adopt this approach to examine how LALMs utilize audio versus textual information for temporal reasoning

    Behavioral Analysis Behavioral analysis is an interpretability approach that seeks to understand a model by systematically prompting it and ob- serving its outputs under controlled conditions. We adopt this approach to examine how LALMs utilize audio versus textual information for temporal reasoning. We evaluate four state-of-the-art open-source LALMs: Qw...

  5. [5]

    earliest

    Mechanistic Analysis For mechanistic analysis, we only utilize Audio-Flamingo-3 and DeSTA-2.5-Audio. These are the only state-of-the-art LALMs with fully open-source weights, training code, and training data. This enables reproducible mechanistic analysis and rules out data-driven confounds. We compare two training- free attention interventions, applied u...

  6. [6]

    The fix rates achieved indicate that attention distribution is one contributing factor among others

    Limitations and Future Work Our attention-level interventions cannot rule out the impact of alternative mechanisms such as weak audio encoder representa- tions. The fix rates achieved indicate that attention distribution is one contributing factor among others. However, our findings do rule out one prominent hypothesis: prior work has empha- sized audio-t...

  7. [7]

    Behavioral analysis confirms models under-utilize audio when textual cues are available

    Conclusion This work investigates temporal reasoning failures in LALMs through a controlled benchmark with 1,657 questions across three foundational tasks. Behavioral analysis confirms models under-utilize audio when textual cues are available. We pro- vide the first causal attention interventions for temporal reason- ing in LALMs, adapting ScalingVis fro...

  8. [8]

    These tools were used exclusively for linguistic support and were not used to generate scientific results or formulate claims

    Generative AI Use Disclosure We utilized AI assistants to help clarify explanations, suggest concise phrasing, and organize text for readability. These tools were used exclusively for linguistic support and were not used to generate scientific results or formulate claims

  9. [9]

    Not in sync: Unveiling temporal bias in audio chat models,

    J. Yao, S. Liu, Y . Wang, R. Cheng, L. Mei, B. Bi, Z. Xiong, and X. Cheng, “Not in sync: Unveiling temporal bias in audio chat models,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2510.12185

    work page arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Benchmarking and Confidence Evaluation of LALMs For Temporal Reasoning,

    D. Bhattacharya, A. Kulkarni, and S. Ganapathy, “Benchmarking and Confidence Evaluation of LALMs For Temporal Reasoning,” inInterspeech 2025, 2025, pp. 2068–2072

    2025

  11. [11]

    MMAU: A massive multi-task audio understanding and reasoning benchmark,

    S. Sakshi, U. Tyagi, S. Kumar, A. Seth, R. Selvakumar, O. Nieto, R. Duraiswami, S. Ghosh, and D. Manocha, “MMAU: A massive multi-task audio understanding and reasoning benchmark,” inThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //openreview.net/forum?id=TeV AZXr3yv

    2025

  12. [12]

    Mmar: A challenging benchmark for deep reasoning in speech, audio, music, and their mix,

    Z. Ma, Y . Ma, Y . Zhu, C. Yang, Y .-W. Chao, R. Xu, W. Chen, Y . Chen, Z. Chen, J. Cong, K. Li, K. Li, S. Li, X. Li, X. Li, Z. Lian, Y . Liang, M. Liu, Z. Niu, T. Wang, Y . Wang, Y . Wang, Y . Wu, G. Yang, J. Yu, R. Yuan, Z. Zheng, Z. Zhou, H. Zhu, W. Xue, E. Benetos, K. Yu, E.-S. Chng, and X. Chen, “Mmar: A challenging benchmark for deep reasoning in sp...

    work page arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    MMAU-Pro: A challenging and comprehensive benchmark for holistic evaluation of audio general intelligence,

    S. Kumar, ˇSimon Sedl ´aˇcek, V . Lokegaonkar, F. L ´opez, W. Yu, N. Anand, H. Ryu, L. Chen, M. Pli ˇcka, M. Hlav ´aˇcek, W. F. Ellingwood, S. Udupa, S. Hou, A. Ferner, S. Barahona, C. Bola ˜nos, S. Rahi, L. Herrera-Alarc ´on, S. Dixit, S. Patil, S. Deshmukh, L. Koroshinadze, Y . Liu, L. P. G. Perera, E. Zanou, T. Stafylakis, J. S. Chung, D. Harwath, C. Z...

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    When audio and text disagree: Revealing text bias in large audio-language models,

    C. Wang, G. Deng, X. Yang, H. Qiu, and T. Zhang, “When audio and text disagree: Revealing text bias in large audio-language models,” inProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, C. Christodoulopoulos, T. Chakraborty, C. Rose, and V . Peng, Eds. Suzhou, China: Association for Computational Linguistics, Nov. 2025...

    2025

  15. [15]

    Omni-r1: Do you really need audio to fine-tune your audio llm?

    A. Rouditchenko, S. Bhati, E. Araujo, S. Thomas, H. Kuehne, R. Feris, and J. Glass, “Omni-r1: Do you really need audio to fine-tune your audio llm?” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.09439

    work page arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Measuring audio’s impact on correctness: Audio-contribution-aware post-training of large audio language models,

    H. He, X. Du, R. Sun, Z. Dai, Y . Xiao, M. Yang, J. Zhou, X. Li, Z. Liu, Z. Liang, C. Wu, Q. He, T. Lee, X. Chen, W.-L. Zheng, W. Wang, M. Plumbley, J. Liu, and Q. Kong, “Measuring audio’s impact on correctness: Audio-contribution-aware post-training of large audio language models,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.21060

    work page arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Paying more attention to image: A training-free method for alleviating hallucination in lvlms,

    S. Liu, K. Zheng, and W. Chen, “Paying more attention to image: A training-free method for alleviating hallucination in lvlms,”

  18. [18]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21771

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21771

    work page arXiv

  19. [19]

    Why is spatial reasoning hard for vlms? an attention mechanism perspective on focus areas,

    S. Chen, T. Zhu, R. Zhou, J. Zhang, S. Gao, J. C. Niebles, M. Geva, J. He, J. Wu, and M. Li, “Why is spatial reasoning hard for vlms? an attention mechanism perspective on focus areas,”

  20. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01773 , year=

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.01773

    work page arXiv

  21. [21]

    Pay more attention to audio: Mitigating imbalance of cross-modal attention in large audio language models,

    J. Wang, Z. Ma, Z. Luo, T. Wang, M. Ge, X. Wang, and L. Wang, “Pay more attention to audio: Mitigating imbalance of cross-modal attention in large audio language models,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.18816

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Tacos: Temporally- aligned audio captions for language-audio pretraining,

    P. Primus, F. Schmid, and G. Widmer, “Tacos: Temporally- aligned audio captions for language-audio pretraining,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.07609

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Qwen2-Audio Technical Report

    Y . Chu, J. Xu, Q. Yang, H. Wei, X. Wei, Z. Guo, Y . Leng, Y . Lv, J. He, J. Lin, C. Zhou, and J. Zhou, “Qwen2-audio technical report,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.10759

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Kimi-Audio Technical Report

    KimiTeam, D. Ding, Z. Ju, Y . Leng, S. Liu, T. Liu, Z. Shang, K. Shen, W. Song, X. Tan, H. Tang, Z. Wang, C. Wei, Y . Xin, X. Xu, J. Yu, Y . Zhang, X. Zhou, Y . Charles, J. Chen, Y . Chen, Y . Du, W. He, Z. Hu, G. Lai, Q. Li, Y . Liu, W. Sun, J. Wang, Y . Wang, Y . Wu, Y . Wu, D. Yang, H. Yang, Y . Yang, Z. Yang, A. Yin, R. Yuan, Y . Zhang, and Z. Zhou, “...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Audio Flamingo 3: Advancing Audio Intelligence with Fully Open Large Audio Language Models

    A. Goel, S. Ghosh, J. Kim, S. Kumar, Z. Kong, S. gil Lee, C.-H. H. Yang, R. Duraiswami, D. Manocha, R. Valle, and B. Catanzaro, “Audio flamingo 3: Advancing audio intelligence with fully open large audio language models,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08128

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Desta2.5-audio: Toward general-purpose large audio language model with self- generated cross-modal alignment,

    K.-H. Lu, Z. Chen, S.-W. Fu, C.-H. H. Yang, S.-F. Huang, C.-K. Yang, C.-E. Yu, C.-W. Chen, W.-C. Chen, C. yu Huang, Y .-C. Lin, Y .-X. Lin, C.-A. Fu, C.-Y . Kuan, W. Ren, X. Chen, W.-P. Huang, E.-P. Hu, T.-Q. Lin, Y .-K. Wu, K.-P. Huang, H.-Y . Huang, H.-C. Chou, K.-W. Chang, C.-H. Chiang, B. Ginsburg, Y .-C. F. Wang, and H. yi Lee, “Desta2.5-audio: Towar...

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Is a picture worth a thousand words? delving into spatial reason- ing for vision language models,

    J. Wang, Y . Ming, Z. Shi, V . Vineet, X. Wang, Y . Li, and N. Joshi, “Is a picture worth a thousand words? delving into spatial reason- ing for vision language models,” inAdvances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, A. Globerson, L. Mackey, D. Belgrave, A. Fan, U. Paquet, J. Tomczak, and C. Zhang, Eds., vol. 37. Cur- ran Associates, Inc., 2024, p...

    2024