How do sonification and ML representations differ in which glitch types they fail to recognize?

Your question asks about a specific empirical comparison—which glitch types sonification and ML representations fail to recognize—but the provided preprints don't directly compare those two modalities against each other.

The papers do show that *different ML architectures* have uneven performance across glitch classes. For instance, [AG-2026.04-243] benchmarks tree-based models, MLPs, and attention networks on tabular metadata and notes varying performance across architectures, while [AG-2025.10-315] uses unsupervised learning (VAE + clustering) and identifies eight distinct categories without explicitly reporting which ones are harder to resolve. [AG-2024.01-345] mentions that older classifiers struggled with "poor generalization" on new glitch types in LIGO's O4 run, suggesting certain morphologies defeat simpler models. [AG-2025.10-100] achieves 92% accuracy on 24 classes with Vision Transformers, implying ~8% of instances are misclassified, but doesn't break down errors by glitch type.

However, none of these preprints directly evaluate *sonification*—converting glitches to audio for human listening—as a classification method, nor do they systematically compare where sonification fails versus where image-based or tabular ML representations fail.

The provided preprints don't contain a direct comparison between sonification and ML representation failure modes.