Reliable and interpretable automated assessment of second-language (L2) speech remains a central challenge, as large speech-language models (SpeechLLMs) often struggle to align with the nuanced variability of human raters. To address this, we introduce a rubric-guided reasoning framework that explicitly encodes multi-aspect human assessment criteria: accuracy, fluency, and prosody, while calibrating model uncertainty to capture natural rating variability. We fine-tune the Qwen2-Audio-7B-Instruct model using multi-rater human judgments and develop an uncertainty-calibrated regression approach supported by conformal calibration for interpretable confidence intervals. Our Gaussian uncertainty modeling and conformal calibration approach achieves the strongest alignment with human ratings, outperforming regression and classification baselines. The model reliably assesses fluency and prosody while highlighting the inherent difficulty of assessing accuracy. Together, these results demonstrate that rubric-guided, uncertainty-calibrated reasoning offers a principled path toward trustworthy and explainable SpeechLLM-based speech assessment.
Figures & tables
Accuracy
Fluency
Prosody
QWK (R–R)
0.5585 ± 0.0671
0.5019 ± 0.1353
0.5021 ± 0.1153
Table 1: QWK (mean ± SD) across human raters.
Rubrics
↑ F1
↑ MCC
Accuracy
0.558
0.341
Fluency
0.642
0.452
Prosody
0.670
0.468
Table 2: Classification performance across rubrics for DiCl. Arrows indicate that higher is better.
Figure 1: Aggregated confusion matrix across all rubrics for DiCl. Rows show human (gold-standard) ratings. Columns show model predictions. Each cell displays the count (top), percentage within the true class (middle), and percentage across all samples (bottom).
Rubrics
↑ F1
↑ MCC
↑ PCC
↓ RMSE
↑ QWK (M–R)
SRR.M
Accuracy
0.2479
0.0843
0.7390
1.1854
0.432±0.046
± 1
0.7966
0.7543
0.9417
0.5456
Fluency
0.3717
0.2416
0.7956
0.9326
0.445±0.081
± 1
0.9137
0.9000
0.9571
0.4218
Prosody
0.4073
0.2838
0.7728
0.9163
0.468±0.093
± 1
0.9216
0.9117
0.9558
0.4357
Table 3: Regression-based results across all model families. Arrows indicate the direction of improvement. Tolerance ( ±1 ) and High–Low Calibration indicate lenient evaluation settings where predictions within the tolerance or predicted uncertainty range are considered acceptable.
Figure 2: Aggregated confusion matrices across regression methods (SRR.M, MRR.M, MRR.G, MRR.GC). Red boxes in the first three panels indicate the ±1 tolerance region, while in the bottom-right panel, red contours denote the median calibrated range from conformal prediction. Each cell shows the total count (top), the percentage within the true class (middle), and the percentage relative to all samples (bottom).
≤N raters
Accuracy (%)
Fluency (%)
Prosody (%)
5
6.68
0.96
1.92
4
25.92
8.60
12.72
3
60.04
34.24
44.16
2
83.92
67.20
77.56
1
93.84
91.52
94.68
Table 4: Cumulative percentage with at most N raters within the model’s prediction interval (monotonic increasing with N ).