Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 7, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Automatic audio scene description turns a recording into a text account of a situation. One difficulty is deciding which elements of the audio should be kept, since a description cannot include them all. Annotators disagree about this, making a ground truth hard to obtain. In this work, we first define the ground truth, then generate the data. We focus on audio events and define sound salience with a simple rule: a sound is salient when a speaker audibly reacts to it. For scale and variety, a controlled set of scenarios fixes the ground truth, and a language model writes the dialogues. The resulting corpus, CARES, contains 10,000 two-speaker scenes. We then benchmark six audio-language models on three tasks: identifying the scene, tagging the sounds present, and classifying reactions. We show that these models hear the sounds but miss how the speakers react to them.