A Survey on Speech Large Language Models for Understanding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speech understanding is essential for interpreting the diverse forms of information embedded in spoken language, including linguistic, paralinguistic, and non-linguistic cues that are vital for effective human-computer interaction. The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has catalyzed the emergence of Speech Large Language Models (Speech LLMs), which marks a transformative shift toward generalpurpose speech understanding systems. To further clarify and systematically delineate task objectives, in this paper, we formally define the concept of speech understanding and introduce a structured taxonomy encompassing its informational, functional, and format dimensions. Within this scope of definition, we present a comprehensive review of current Speech LLMs, analyzing their architectures through a three-stage abstraction: Modality Feature Extraction, Modality Information Fusion, and LLM Inference. In addition, we examine training strategies, discuss representative datasets, and review evaluation methodologies adopted in the field. Based on empirical analyses and experimental evidence, we identify two key challenges currently facing Speech LLMs-instruction sensitivity and degradation in semantic reasoning-and propose concrete directions for addressing these issues. Through this systematic and detailed survey, we aim to offer a foundational reference for researchers and practitioners working toward more robust, generalizable, and human-aligned Speech LLMs.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".