TISDiSS: A Training-Time and Inference-Time Scalable Framework for Discriminative Source Separation

Source separation is a fundamental task in speech, music, and audio processing, and it also provides cleaner and larger data for training generative models. However, improving separation performance in practice often depends on increasingly large networks, inflating training and deployment costs. Motivated by recent advances in inference-time scaling for generative modeling, we propose Training-Time and Inference-Time Scalable Discriminative Source Separation (TISDiSS), a unified framework that integrates early-split multi-loss supervision, shared-parameter design, and dynamic inference repetitions. TISDiSS enables flexible speed-performance trade-offs by adjusting inference depth without retraining additional models. We further provide systematic analyses of architectural and training choices and show that training with more inference repetitions improves shallow-inference performance, benefiting low-latency applications. Experiments on standard speech separation benchmarks demonstrate state-of-the-art performance with a reduced parameter count, establishing TISDiSS as a scalable and practical framework for adaptive source separation.

Competent but Rigid: Identifying the Gap in Empowering AI to Participate Equally in Group Decision-Making

Existing research on human-AI collaborative decision-making focuses mainly on the interaction between AI and individual decision-makers. There is a limited understanding of how AI may perform in group decision-making. This paper presents a wizard-of-oz study in which two participants and an AI form a committee to rank three English essays. One novelty of our study is that we adopt a speculative design by endowing AI equal power to humans in group decision-making.We enable the AI to discuss and vote equally with other human members. We find that although the voice of AI is considered valuable, AI still plays a secondary role in the group because it cannot fully follow the dynamics of the discussion and make progressive contributions. Moreover, the divergent opinions of our participants regarding an "equal AI" shed light on the possible future of human-AI relations.