Papers
arxiv:2605.16403

When Vision Speaks for Sound

Published on May 13
· Submitted by
Tinghui Zhu
on May 20
#3 Paper of the day
Authors:
,
,
,
,
,

Abstract

Video-capable multimodal large language models exhibit apparent audio understanding driven by visual cues rather than actual audio processing, necessitating intervention-based frameworks for diagnosing and improving audio-visual alignment.

AI-generated summary

Despite rapid progress in video-capable MLLMs, we find that their apparent audio understanding in videos is often vision-driven: models rely on visual cues to infer or hallucinate acoustic information, rather than verifying the audio stream. This issue appears across both state-of-the-art open-source omni models and leading closed-source models from providers such as Google and OpenAI. We characterize this failure mode as an audio-visual Clever Hans effect, in which models appear (falsely) audio-grounded, but actually exploit visual-acoustic correlations without verifying whether the audio and visual streams are truly aligned. To systematically study this behavior, we introduce Thud, an intervention-driven probing framework based on three counterfactual audio edits: Shift, which tests temporal synchronization; Mute, which tests sound existence; and Swap, which tests audio-visual consistency. Beyond diagnosis, we further study a two-stage alignment recipe: intervention-derived preference pairs teach audio verification, while event-level general video preferences regularize the model against over-specialization. Our best 10K-sample recipe improves average performance across the three intervention dimensions by 28 percentage points, while slightly improving performance on general video and audio-visual QA benchmarks.

Community

Paper author Paper submitter

WVS-Thud: an intervention-driven framework that mitigates the audio-visual Clever Hans effect by teaching video models to verify actual sounds instead of relying on visual shortcuts.

the counterfactual grounding angle in thud is a much-needed move to separate true audio verification from mere visual priors. my worry is ecological validity: beyond shift/mute/swap, do subtle perturbations like brief frequency masking or slight time-stretching reveal more brittle shortcuts that these models still rely on? if they didn't test those, it would be a nice addition, since real-world misalignments are often subtle rather than full breaks. the arxivlens breakdown helped me parse the method details, and i appreciated how it highlights where the grounding signal actually comes from, with a pointer at https://arxivlens.com/PaperView/Details/when-vision-speaks-for-sound-1337-32586847

Sign up or log in to comment

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2605.16403
Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2605.16403 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 4

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2605.16403 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 1