DASB - Discrete Audio and Speech Benchmark
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discrete audio tokens have recently gained considerable attention for their potential to bridge audio and language processing, enabling multimodal language models that can both generate and understand audio. However, preserving key information such as phonetic content, speaker identity, and paralinguistic cues remains a major challenge. Identifying the optimal tokenizer and configuration is further complicated by inconsistent evaluation settings across existing studies. To address this, we introduce the Discrete Audio and Speech Benchmark (DASB), a comprehensive framework for benchmarking discrete audio tokens across speech, general audio, and music domains on a range of discriminative and generative tasks. Our results show that discrete representations are less robust than continuous ones and require careful tuning of factors such as model architecture, data size, learning rate, and capacity. Semantic tokens generally outperform acoustic tokens, but a gap remains between discrete tokens and continuous features, highlighting the need for further research. DASB codes, evaluation setup, and leaderboards are publicly available at https://poonehmousavi.github.io/DASB-website/.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".