Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 60 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 51 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 39 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 40 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 120 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 211 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 416 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 36 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Spatial-CLAP: Learning Spatially-Aware audio--text Embeddings for Multi-Source Conditions (2509.14785v1)

Published 18 Sep 2025 in cs.SD

Abstract: Contrastive language--audio pretraining (CLAP) has achieved remarkable success as an audio--text embedding framework, but existing approaches are limited to monaural or single-source conditions and cannot fully capture spatial information. The central challenge in modeling spatial information lies in multi-source conditions, where the correct correspondence between each sound source and its location is required. To tackle this problem, we propose Spatial-CLAP, which introduces a content-aware spatial encoder that enables spatial representations coupled with audio content. We further propose spatial contrastive learning (SCL), a training strategy that explicitly enforces the learning of the correct correspondence and promotes more reliable embeddings under multi-source conditions. Experimental evaluations, including downstream tasks, demonstrate that Spatial-CLAP learns effective embeddings even under multi-source conditions, and confirm the effectiveness of SCL. Moreover, evaluation on unseen three-source mixtures highlights the fundamental distinction between conventional single-source training and our proposed multi-source training paradigm. These findings establish a new paradigm for spatially-aware audio--text embeddings.

Summary

  • The paper introduces a content-aware spatial encoder and spatial contrastive learning to effectively align audio–text embeddings under multi-source conditions.
  • It employs a dual-encoder architecture that fuses monaural and spatial features, overcoming permutation challenges in complex auditory scenes.
  • Experimental results reveal enhanced retrieval and captioning accuracy and robust generalization to unseen multi-source scenarios.

Spatial-CLAP: Spatially-Aware Audio–Text Embeddings for Multi-Source Conditions

Introduction and Motivation

Spatial-CLAP addresses a critical limitation in current audio–text embedding models: the inability to robustly encode spatial information, especially under multi-source conditions. While models such as CLAP, AudioCLIP, and Pengi have demonstrated strong performance in aligning audio and text representations, their focus has been primarily on monaural or single-source audio, discarding spatial cues essential for real-world auditory scene understanding. The central challenge is to develop embeddings that not only capture "what" is sounding but also "where" each event occurs, particularly when multiple sources are present simultaneously.

Prior attempts to extend CLAP with spatial encoders have been restricted to single-source scenarios, failing to resolve the permutation problem inherent in multi-source environments—namely, the correct binding between each source and its spatial location. Spatial-CLAP introduces a content-aware spatial encoder (CA-SE) and a novel spatial contrastive learning (SCL) strategy to explicitly enforce content–space correspondence, enabling robust, spatially-aware audio–text embeddings. Figure 1

Figure 1

Figure 1: Comparison of audio encoders. (a) Conventional method encodes content and spatial information separately, causing permutation problems under multi-source conditions. (b) Spatial-CLAP introduces a content-aware spatial encoder aligning content and spatial embeddings.

Model Architecture

Spatial-CLAP employs a dual-encoder architecture for audio and text:

  • Content Encoder (CE): Processes the average of stereo channels using a monaural CLAP encoder, leveraging large-scale pretraining for rich content representation.
  • Content-Aware Spatial Encoder (CA-SE): Adapted from SELDNet, pretrained on sound event localization and detection (SELD) tasks, and designed to couple spatial cues with content information. The CA-SE processes stereo input and outputs a fixed-dimensional embedding.
  • Fusion: The outputs of CE and CA-SE are concatenated and passed through a two-layer MLP to produce the final audio embedding.
  • Text Encoder: A RoBERTa-base model, fine-tuned within the contrastive learning framework, produces text embeddings aligned with the audio space.

This architecture enables the model to unify content and spatial information within a single embedding, overcoming the limitations of prior approaches that treat these aspects independently.

Spatial Contrastive Learning (SCL)

Standard contrastive learning aligns audio and text embeddings using InfoNCE loss, but is insufficient for enforcing correct content–space correspondence in multi-source conditions. SCL addresses this by generating hard negative examples through permutation of content–space assignments. For a two-source mixture, SCL constructs both the correct and permuted (swapped) versions of the audio–text pair, including both in the batch. The model is thus explicitly penalized for failing to distinguish between correct and incorrect content–space bindings. Figure 2

Figure 2: Spatial contrastive learning (SCL) enforces the model to explicitly learn content–space correspondence in multi-source environments by adding permuted content–space assignment audio–text pairs as hard negative examples.

This approach generalizes to nn sources by generating all n!1n! - 1 non-identity permutations as negatives, providing strong supervision for the binding problem.

Experimental Evaluation

Datasets and Setup

  • Audio: AudioCaps 2.0, with 91,256 training, 2,475 validation, and 975 test samples. Each monaural clip is convolved with simulated RIRs to generate stereo signals.
  • Spatial Labels: Five DoA classes (front-left, front, front-right, left, right), with captions augmented to include spatial descriptions.
  • Room Simulation: 440 reverberant rooms, with disjoint splits for training, validation, and testing.
  • Model Details: CE uses HTS-AT initialized with CLAP weights; CA-SE is based on SELDNet; text encoder is RoBERTa-base. All components are fine-tuned jointly.

Baselines

  • Monaural: No spatial encoder; standard CLAP.
  • Conventional: Spatial encoder trained on DoA estimation, but not content-aware; trained only on single-source data.
  • Structured: SE and CE outputs processed independently, preventing content–space binding.
  • Ours (Spatial-CLAP): Full model with CA-SE and SCL.
  • Ablations: Variants without SCL, without CLAP pretraining, or with a non-content-aware SE.

Embedding-Based Evaluation

Spatial-CLAP achieves the highest R@1 retrieval scores and spatial classification accuracy under both single- and multi-source conditions. Notably, in the two-source (2-src) setting, Spatial-CLAP outperforms all baselines in both retrieval and content–space assignment accuracy, demonstrating its ability to resolve the permutation problem and generalize to complex mixtures.

Downstream Task: Spatial Audio Captioning

Spatial-CLAP embeddings are evaluated on a spatial audio captioning task using a frozen audio encoder and a GPT-2 decoder. Metrics include BLEU, ROUGE-L, METEOR, CIDEr, SPICE, SPIDEr, BERTScore, SBERT, and the proposed DW-SBERT (direction-wise SBERT) for spatial evaluation.

Spatial-CLAP achieves the highest scores across all metrics, with particularly strong improvements in DW-SBERT and spatial description accuracy, indicating effective encoding of both content and spatial information. Conventional semantic metrics (e.g., SBERT) are shown to be insufficient for spatial evaluation, motivating the use of spatially-aware metrics.

Embedding Visualization

Figure 3

Figure 3

Figure 3: Comparison of t-SNE visualizations of embeddings. RoBERTa produces mixed clusters without clear separation, while Spatial-CLAP forms distinct clusters by spatial class.

t-SNE visualizations reveal that Spatial-CLAP embeddings form well-separated clusters corresponding to spatial classes, in contrast to RoBERTa embeddings, which lack such structure. This demonstrates the emergence of spatial structure through audio–text alignment.

Generalization to Unseen Multi-Source Conditions

Spatial-CLAP generalizes to three-source mixtures, achieving content–space assignment accuracy significantly above chance, despite being trained only on up to two sources. In contrast, the conventional baseline remains at chance level, underscoring the importance of multi-source training and SCL for generalization.

Implications and Future Directions

Spatial-CLAP establishes a new paradigm for spatially-aware audio–text embeddings, enabling robust modeling of complex auditory scenes with multiple simultaneous sources. The explicit enforcement of content–space correspondence via SCL is critical for resolving the permutation problem and achieving generalization beyond the training regime.

Practically, this work enables applications in AR/VR, robot audition, and open-vocabulary SELD, where understanding both "what" and "where" is essential. The release of code and pretrained models provides a strong baseline for future research.

Theoretically, the results highlight the necessity of multi-source training and the limitations of single-source spatial extensions. The findings also motivate the development of more sophisticated spatial evaluation metrics and the extension of the framework to dynamic scenes with moving sources.

Conclusion

Spatial-CLAP introduces a content-aware spatial encoder and spatial contrastive learning to achieve spatially-aware audio–text embeddings effective under multi-source conditions. Experimental results demonstrate strong performance in both retrieval and captioning tasks, with clear advantages over prior approaches in content–space binding and generalization. This work provides a foundation for future research in spatial audio–text modeling, with immediate implications for real-world auditory scene understanding and multimodal AI systems.

Ai Generate Text Spark Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Explain it Like I'm 14

What this paper is about (in a nutshell)

Imagine you’re in a room with your eyes closed. You hear a dog barking on your left and a car honking on your right. You don’t just know what you heard (dog, car); you also know where each sound came from (left, right). Most computer models that connect sounds with text can tell “what” is sounding, but not “where” it is happening—especially when multiple sounds happen at once.

This paper introduces Spatial-CLAP, a new way to teach computers to understand both what a sound is and where it’s coming from at the same time, even when there are several sounds together.

What questions the paper tries to answer

  • How can we make audio–text models understand spatial information (the “where”), not just content (the “what”)?
  • How can a model keep track of which sound is at which location when multiple sounds happen together?
  • Can such a model work well on real tasks like finding the right caption for a sound or writing a caption that mentions both the sound and its direction?

How the researchers approached it (with simple analogies)

To explain the approach, think of two parts:

  • The “what” learner: This part recognizes what is making the sound (like “dog bark” or “car horn”). It’s based on a successful model called CLAP that already knows a lot about sound–text matching.
  • The “where” learner: This part figures out the direction a sound comes from (left, right, front-left, etc.), like how our two ears help us locate sounds.

The paper’s key ideas:

  • Content-aware spatial encoder (CA-SE): Instead of learning “what” and “where” separately (which can get mixed up when multiple sounds happen), they make a “where” learner that is aware of “what.” This helps it bind the correct sound to the correct location.
  • Stereo input: The model listens with two “ears” (stereo microphones), which is crucial for locating sounds in space.
  • Contrastive learning: Think of teaching by example and counterexample. The model sees pairs that match (an audio clip and its correct caption) and tries to pull them together in its memory. It also sees mismatched pairs and learns to push them apart.
  • Spatial contrastive learning (SCL): A clever training trick. They create “hard negatives” by swapping the locations of sounds. For example:
    • Correct: “dog on the left, car on the right”
    • Swapped (wrong): “dog on the right, car on the left”
    • By telling the model the swapped one is wrong, it learns to care about which sound is at which place—not just the list of sounds or the list of directions separately.

How they built the data:

  • They started with normal, single-channel audio clips paired with captions (from AudioCaps).
  • They turned those into stereo “room” recordings using simulated room echoes (like placing sounds in a virtual room).
  • For scenes with multiple sounds, they mixed two or more sounds together and wrote captions that included both content and direction (e.g., “a dog barks on the left and a car honks on the right”).

What they found and why it matters

Main results:

  • Better at multi-sound scenes: Spatial-CLAP was much better than previous methods at handling mixtures (like two different sounds at different directions).
  • Strong “what–where” binding: It was best at telling which sound happened where, not just what happened or where something happened in general.
  • The SCL trick helps: Adding the “swapped positions” negatives made the model even more reliable in multi-sound situations.
  • Still good at single-sound tasks: It didn’t lose its ability to understand content when there was only one sound.
  • Works for captioning: When used to help a text generator write descriptions, the model produced better captions that included correct spatial phrases (like “on the left”).

Why this matters:

  • Real life is full of overlapping sounds. Knowing both “what” and “where” is essential for devices like home assistants, robots, AR/VR headsets, hearing aids, and safety systems.
  • This work shows how to train models that understand complex audio scenes more like humans do.

What this could lead to

  • Smarter sound search: You could search for “a baby crying behind me” and find the exact clip, not just any baby cry.
  • Better assistive tech and robots: Devices could focus on the right sound in the right direction (e.g., hear your voice on the left in a noisy room).
  • More immersive AR/VR: Systems could place and describe virtual sounds accurately in space.
  • Stronger foundations for future research: The authors released code and models, making it easier for others to build and improve spatial audio–text systems.

In short, the paper takes a big step toward teaching machines to understand sound scenes the way we do: knowing both what is happening and where it’s happening, even when many things happen at once.

Ai Generate Text Spark Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Knowledge Gaps

Knowledge Gaps, Limitations, and Open Questions

Below is a concise list of unresolved issues that the paper leaves open. Each point highlights a concrete gap or limitation that future work can address:

  • Real-world generalization: No evaluation on recorded spatial audio (e.g., binaural HRIRs, Ambisonics/FOA, microphone arrays, mobile devices); results are limited to simulated RIRs with clean monaural sources.
  • Limited microphone geometry: Only a fixed two-microphone stereo setup is used; generalization to different array topologies, spacings, and device-dependent transfer functions is untested.
  • Front–back ambiguity and coarse spatial resolution: DoA is folded into five azimuthal classes (“front-left,” “front,” “front-right,” “left,” “right”), leaving out back, elevation, distance, and continuous angle estimation; how to extend to full 3D localization is unanswered.
  • Synthetic data bias: RIRs cover a narrow T60 range (130–260 ms) and simulated rooms; robustness to real reverberation extremes, outdoor scenes, occlusions, and non-shoebox acoustics is unknown.
  • Noise and interference robustness: No experiments with diffuse background noise, non-point sources, device noise, or low SNR; resilience to realistic acoustic clutter remains unassessed.
  • Source polyphony and scalability: Training batches only include one- and two-source samples; performance for higher polyphony (≥3–4 sources) and mixtures with many concurrent events is largely unexplored beyond a small “unseen three-source” evaluation.
  • SCL scalability: Spatial contrastive learning requires n!-1 negatives for n sources; the paper uses two-source swaps only and does not propose a tractable strategy for higher n (e.g., partial swaps, subset pairing, curriculum, stochastic pairing).
  • Embedding capacity limits: A single fixed-dimensional embedding must encode multiple source–location bindings; how capacity scales with source count and scene complexity is not characterized (e.g., saturation, interference between bindings).
  • Temporal dynamics and motion: The model aggregates over time and is not explicitly evaluated on moving sources or time-varying correspondences; handling of dynamic scenes is an open question.
  • Per-source disentanglement: The representation is global and does not yield per-source embeddings or a set-structured output; methods to recover source-wise attributes (content, DoA) from the joint embedding are missing.
  • Caption order sensitivity: Multi-source captions are concatenations; whether retrieval and captioning are sensitive to the order of per-source phrases (and how to enforce order-invariance or canonicalization) is not analyzed.
  • Open-vocabulary spatial language: Spatial phrases are restricted to five tokens; robustness to diverse natural-language spatial descriptions (synonyms, relative directions, distances, comparative relations) is untested.
  • Cross-lingual generalization: Only English captions are used; performance for other languages and multilingual spatial expressions remains unknown.
  • Downstream breadth: Beyond retrieval, spatial classification, and captioning, transfer to other spatial downstream tasks (e.g., open-vocabulary SELD metrics, multi-object tracking, separation/diarization, AR/VR interaction) is not evaluated.
  • Metric validation: New spatial metrics (DW-SBERT, “Spatial description” rate) are not validated against human judgments; sensitivity, reliability, and failure modes of these metrics need assessment.
  • Zero-shot spatial generalization: While content is open-vocabulary via CLAP, zero-shot handling of novel spatial concepts (e.g., “behind,” elevation terms, relative positioning) is not measured.
  • Robustness to label noise: Each monaural AudioCaps clip is treated as a single spatial source even if it contains mixtures; the impact of this label noise on learned content–space bindings is not quantified.
  • SCL applicability to real data: SCL relies on access to separated sources and controllable RIR permutations; how to implement analogous hard negatives with real recordings (weak labels, pseudo-labels, or self-supervised augmentations) is not discussed.
  • Trade-off control (content vs. spatial): The unified embedding mixes content and spatial cues; mechanisms to tune sensitivity (e.g., disentangled heads, task-conditioned pooling) and analyze trade-offs are not explored.
  • Elevation and distance cues: No modeling or evaluation of elevation or source distance; how to incorporate ITD/ILD–based elevation cues, spectral notches, or distance attenuation into CA-SE is open.
  • Hyperparameter/systematic ablations: No paper of batch composition (ratio of single/multi-source), number/type of negatives, embedding dimensionality, or MLP bottleneck size on performance and stability.
  • Generalization across domains: No cross-corpus testing (e.g., DCASE SELD datasets, TAU-NIGENS, LOCATA) to assess out-of-distribution robustness in content and acoustics.
  • End-to-end captioning fine-tuning: Captioning freezes the audio encoder; whether joint fine-tuning improves spatial language grounding without degrading generalization remains untested.
  • Interpretability and calibration: No analysis of how embedding similarity varies with controlled spatial changes (e.g., monotonicity with azimuth offset, sensitivity to small DoA shifts); interpretability tools for content–space binding are absent.
Ai Generate Text Spark Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Glossary

  • A2T (audio-to-text): Retrieval setup where an audio query is used to find its matching text. Example: "audio-to-text (A2T)"
  • ACCDOA: A unified vector representation coupling event activity with direction of arrival for SELD. Example: "unified vector representations named ACCDOA"
  • Adam: An adaptive gradient-based optimizer commonly used to train deep networks. Example: "using Adam"
  • AdamW: Adam variant with decoupled weight decay for better generalization. Example: "using AdamW"
  • AudioCaps 2.0: A dataset of audio clips paired with human-written captions. Example: "AudioCaps 2.0"
  • AudioCLIP: An audio–text model extending CLIP-like training to audio. Example: "AudioCLIP"
  • automated audio captioning: Task of generating natural-language descriptions from audio. Example: "automated audio captioning"
  • BERTScore: A captioning metric that measures semantic similarity using contextual embeddings. Example: "BERTScore"
  • BLEU: A precision-based n-gram overlap metric for evaluating generated text. Example: "BLEU"
  • CA-SE (content-aware spatial encoder): A spatial encoder designed to produce spatial embeddings bound to content. Example: "content-aware spatial encoder (CA-SE)"
  • CE (content encoder): The module that extracts content-focused embeddings from audio. Example: "content encoder (CE)"
  • CIDEr: A consensus-based metric for caption evaluation emphasizing term frequency–inverse document frequency. Example: "CIDEr"
  • CLAP (Contrastive language--audio pretraining): Framework that aligns audio and text embeddings via contrastive learning. Example: "Contrastive language--audio pretraining (CLAP)"
  • contrastive learning: Learning paradigm that pulls matched pairs together and pushes mismatched pairs apart in embedding space. Example: "contrastive learning framework"
  • content--space correspondence: The binding between each sound source’s content and its spatial location. Example: "content--space correspondence"
  • Direction-wise SBERT (DW-SBERT): A spatially oriented metric that compares caption segments per direction using SBERT. Example: "Direction-wise SBERT (DW-SBERT)"
  • direction of arrival (DoA): The angle from which a sound reaches the microphones. Example: "direction of arrival (DoA)"
  • embed-ACCDOA: A SELD approach that uses CLAP-based embeddings within the ACCDOA framework for open-vocabulary settings. Example: "embed-ACCDOA"
  • fixed-RIR: Evaluation setting where a single, pre-selected room impulse response is used to isolate content effects. Example: "fixed-RIR"
  • GPT-2: A transformer-based LLM used here as a caption decoder. Example: "GPT-2"
  • HTS-AT: A transformer-based audio tagging backbone used as the content encoder. Example: "HTS-AT"
  • InfoNCE loss: A contrastive loss that maximizes similarity of true pairs over in-batch negatives. Example: "InfoNCE loss"
  • METEOR: A captioning metric emphasizing recall, stemming, and synonymy. Example: "METEOR"
  • MLP (multilayer perceptron): A feed-forward neural network used to map concatenated features to embeddings. Example: "multilayer perceptron (MLP)"
  • Pengi: An audio–LLM connecting audio encoders with LLMs. Example: "Pengi"
  • permutation problem: Ambiguity in assigning multiple sources to multiple locations when content and space are unaligned. Example: "permutation problem under multi-source conditions."
  • permutation-invariant training: Training strategy that handles label ambiguity by optimizing over all output-target permutations. Example: "permutation-invariant training"
  • Polyphonic SELD: SELD setting with multiple overlapping sound events active simultaneously. Example: "Polyphonic SELD"
  • pyroomacoustics: A library for simulating acoustic rooms and RIRs. Example: "pyroomacoustics"
  • R@1 (recall@1): Retrieval metric measuring the fraction of queries whose correct match is ranked first. Example: "recall@1 (R@1) score"
  • ReLU: A nonlinear activation function used in MLP layers. Example: "ReLU activations"
  • RIRs (room impulse responses): Filters characterizing how sound propagates from a source to microphones in a room. Example: "room impulse responses (RIRs)"
  • RoBERTa-base: A pretrained transformer text encoder used for text embeddings. Example: "RoBERTa-base"
  • ROUGE-L: A recall-oriented metric based on longest common subsequence for text evaluation. Example: "ROUGE-L"
  • SALMON: An audio–LLM for multimodal understanding. Example: "SALMON"
  • SBERT (SentenceBERT): A sentence embedding model used for semantic similarity scoring. Example: "SentenceBERT (SBERT)"
  • SELD (sound event localization and detection): Task of jointly detecting sound events and estimating their directions. Example: "sound event localization and detection (SELD)"
  • SELDNet: A neural architecture for SELD using convolutional and recurrent layers. Example: "SELDNet"
  • short-time Fourier transform (STFT): Time–frequency representation of audio used as neural network input. Example: "short-time Fourier transforms"
  • SCL (spatial contrastive learning): Training strategy that uses swapped spatial assignments as hard negatives to enforce binding. Example: "spatial contrastive learning (SCL)"
  • SPICE: A semantic scene graph-based captioning metric. Example: "SPICE"
  • SPIDEr: A captioning metric combining SPICE and CIDEr. Example: "SPIDEr"
  • spatial audio captioning: Generating captions that describe both content and spatial attributes of sounds. Example: "spatial audio captioning"
  • T2A (text-to-audio): Retrieval setup where a text query is used to find its matching audio. Example: "text-to-audio (T2A)"
  • track-wise formulations: SELD outputs assigned to a fixed number of tracks to handle multiple sources. Example: "track-wise formulations"
List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets

This paper has been mentioned in 1 post and received 80 likes.

Don't miss out on important new AI/ML research

See which papers are being discussed right now on X, Reddit, and more:

“Emergent Mind helps me see which AI papers have caught fire online.”

Philip

Philip

Creator, AI Explained on YouTube