While LALMs show promise on audio question answering, they fail to focus on question-relevant segments of audio and provide a clear, checkable reasoning process when dealing with complex audio reasoning. Reinforcement learning and tool-augmented prompting can help models better relate questions to audio but lack a reliable way to understand, integrate, and self-verify audio segments. To address this gap, we present EChO-Agent, a modular agent framework that reformulates complex audio QA as a planning, tool execution, evidence integration, and answer verification workflow. Experiments on MMAR benchmark show EChO-Agent improves both accuracy and rubric scores over baseline and ablation studies show evidence integration is the key factor.
Audio agents extend large audio-language models (LALMs) by decomposing audio questions into tool calls, intermediate evidence, and iterative reasoning steps. However, as LALMs become stronger, the key challenge shifts from enabling tool use to determining when agentic evidence acquisition genuinely benefits audio understanding. We propose Audio-Mind, an auditable and pluggable framework for conditional evidence acquisition in audio understanding. Audio-Mind dynamically combines a strong frontend with planner-guided tool use, preserving frontend judgment when initial evidence is sufficient while acquiring bounded external evidence for questions with unresolved evidence gaps. Experiments on MMAR and MSU-Bench show that Audio-Mind outperforms prior audio-agent baselines, reaching 80.4% accuracy on MMAR and 82.8% accuracy on MSU-Bench. A matched-backbone comparison highlights why this design matters: under strong audio frontends, agentic decomposition can become an orchestration bottleneck when the workflow does not preserve the frontend's holistic audio-grounded judgment. Beyond accuracy, Audio-Mind produces higher-quality, auditable reasoning traces that expose uncertainty, tool evidence, and answer rationales, offering a potential basis for more reliable audio-QA annotation and error analysis.
Large Audio-Language Models (LALMs) have made significant progress in audio understanding, yet they primarily operate as perception-and-answer systems without explicit reasoning processes. Existing methods for enhancing audio reasoning rely either on supervised chain-of-thought (CoT) fine-tuning, which is limited by training data quality, or on reinforcement learning (RL) with coarse rewards that do not directly evaluate reasoning quality. As a result, the generated reasoning chains often appear well-structured yet lack specific acoustic grounding. We propose Audio-DeepThinker, a framework built on two core ideas. First, we introduce a hybrid reasoning similarity reward that directly supervises the quality of generated reasoning chains by combining an LLM evaluator assessing logical path alignment, key step coverage, and analytical depth with an embedding similarity component enforcing semantic alignment with reference reasoning chains. Second, we propose a progressive two-stage curriculum that enables high-quality CoT reasoning to emerge through pure RL exploration, without any supervised reasoning fine-tuning, from an instruction-tuned model that possesses no prior chain-of-thought capability. Stage 1 trains on foundational audio QA with the hybrid reward to foster basic reasoning patterns, while Stage 2 shifts to acoustically challenging boundary cases with an LLM-only reward for greater reasoning diversity. Audio-DeepThinker achieves state-of-the-art results on MMAR (74.0%), MMAU-test-mini (78.5%), and MMSU (77.26%), winning 1st Place in the Interspeech 2026 Audio Reasoning Challenge (Single Model Track). Interpretability analyses further reveal that RL training primarily reshapes upper-layer MoE gating mechanisms and that reasoning tokens crystallize progressively in the upper transformer layers, offering mechanistic insights into how audio reasoning emerges through exploration.
Large Audio Language Models (LALMs) have shown strong performance on audio reasoning benchmarks, but accuracy alone cannot distinguish true reasoning from superficial pattern matching, often overestimating reasoning ability since high scores may result from guessing rather than genuine audio understanding. Evaluating the reasoning process itself is essential for improving LALMs' reasoning ability, yet remains challenging. Existing methods either rely on costly human annotation or opaque LLM-as-judge approaches, making them impractical, biased, and lacking transparency. Moreover, audio reasoning introduces unique challenges absent in text-based settings, perceptual hallucination and cross-modal alignment between audio understanding and textual inference, hence text-based evaluation frameworks cannot be directly applied. Therefore, we propose ARIA-Rubrics (Audio Reasoning Integrity Assessment), a lightweight, annotation-free gold reasoning chains, automatic and transparent framework comprising six complementary metrics that evaluate audio reasoning quality across perceptual grounding, reasoning coherence, and answer consistency. We use Chain-of-Thought prompting as an externalization mechanism to make the reasoning process observable. Experiments on 9 models across 2 benchmarks identify three reasoning modes of current LALMs with actionable directions for future development, with ARIA-Rubrics achieving high correlation with human judgments. The code is available at the Github Repository.