Scaling the corpus is the default remedy when a contrastive representation lacks an attribute. We report a case where it does nothing, and identify what does: adding a lexical-speech round to a frozen-base multimodal embedding model raises zero-shot keyword spotting by 76 points while reducing speech-emotion recognition by 14. The loss is not a capacity limit: fine-tuning on 7,442 clips from a prosody-controlled corpus recovers emotion past its pre-speech level at a five-point keyword cost. Nor is it data volume: 29,428 mined clips whose captions explicitly name emotions, at matched exposure, move emotion by -0.0007. The difference is structural: a contrastive objective encodes an attribute only when the in-batch negatives cannot be separated without it; the controlled corpus holds sentence content fixed, so prosody is the only separating signal, whereas mined captions name emotion yet remain separable by scene content. Intervention on the same audio confirms causality: raising caption similarity does not recover emotion, but collapsing caption diversity so that emotion becomes the only separating axis recovers it by 8.9 points across three seeds, with a smaller, same-signed gain on a non-acted corpus, while keyword accuracy trades back. Corpus structure, not size or caption vocabulary, controls what a contrastive audio embedding encodes.
Matteo Spanio, Antonio Rodàcs.SD cs.IR cs.LG cs.MM
Crossmodal correspondences between sound and taste are well established in psychology and neuroscience, but largely absent from content-based multimedia retrieval. We formalise taste-from-audio prediction as a content-based music information retrieval benchmark over a perceptually validated multi-source corpus, comparing ten frozen audio encoders from the four HEAR families under a shared multi-task regression head, with gated late-fusion as a configurable variant. In order to assess the effectiveness of the models, we compute absolute error and rank correlation. The strongest systems predict the five tastes within a macro RMSE of 0.134; on held-out real music their error is less than half a single rater's deviation from the consensus (RMSE 0.13 vs. 0.28), so the model tracks the group consensus more closely than an average human rater, and well below the previous state of the art baseline (0.219). On absolute error the encoders are statistically flat, with a single VGGish matching the best fusion, but gated late-fusion's advantage is confined to rank correlation (macro Pearson r 0.724 vs. 0.666). Operationalised as a content-based retrieval index, the predicted taste space ranks a 309-item pool far more faithfully than a CLAP-text baseline, which sits at chance; ridge probes and an audio-bandstop knockout read the strongest representations against documented sound-taste correspondences.