Broadening Uncertainty Estimation for Audio Question Answering Across Methods, Formats, and Inputs

Recent audio-aware large language models (ALLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities across diverse audio understanding and reasoning tasks, but they still frequently produce hallucinated or overly confident outputs. While uncertainty estimation has been extensively studied in text-only LLMs, it remains largely unexplored for ALLMs, where audio-conditioned generation introduces additional challenges such as perceptual ambiguity and cross-modal grounding. In this work, we present the first systematic empirical study of uncertainty estimation in ALLMs. We benchmark five representative methods, including predictive entropy, length-normalized entropy, semantic entropy, discrete semantic entropy, and P(True), across multiple models and diverse evaluation settings spanning general audio understanding, reasoning, hallucination detection, and unanswerable question answering. Our results reveal two key findings. First, semantic-level and verification-based methods consistently outperform token-level baselines on general audio reasoning benchmarks. Second, on trustworthiness-oriented benchmarks, the relative effectiveness of uncertainty methods becomes notably more model- and benchmark-dependent, indicating that conclusions drawn from general reasoning settings do not straightforwardly transfer to hallucination and unanswerable-question scenarios. We further explore uncertainty-based adaptive inference as a potential downstream application. We hope this study provides a foundation for future research on reliable, uncertainty-aware audio-language systems.

We frame the system as diagnostic data curation for a large audio-language model: before fine-tuning, we probe Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct under normal, empty-audio, and shuffled-audio conditions to identify how the model's answers change when audio evidence is removed or mismatched. These model confusion patterns are used to bucket training samples into text-prior, shuffle-leak, strong audio-dependent, and hard or misleading cases. Our strongest train-only system fine-tunes only on strong-audio items, where the normal audio-question pair is correct but both counterfactual variants fail, plus a small number of empty-audio negatives and a text-only response normalizer for parse-failed generations. On the official development set, the best train-only system reaches 67.27% accuracy after response normalization, compared with 65.90% for our local Qwen3-Omni baseline. Final submissions additionally include models trained using train+development splits and a three-model ensemble.

Reliable assessment of the abilities of large audio language models (LALMs) is essential to advancing the state of the art. As benchmarks rapidly evolve to incorporate complex reasoning and subjective tasks, they increasingly necessitate open-ended responses from LALMs. We present Open-ended Response Correctness Assessment (ORCA) -- a reliable and lightweight model-based approach for answer correctness and disagreement modeling. We employ a three-stage annotation pipeline combining human judgment, structured feedback, and human-AI correction, yielding 9,663 annotations across 3,699 question-answer pairs from 15 LALMs on three audio understanding and reasoning benchmarks (achieving a Krippendorff's alpha of 0.82). Our experiments employing curriculum learning show that ORCA models achieve a Spearman correlation of 0.91 with average human correctness ratings on seen benchmarks and generalize to unseen benchmarks with a score of 0.85, outperforming several LLM judge baselines including Gemini 2.5 Flash. Furthermore, we demonstrate that ORCA's predicted variance correlates strongly with human disagreement, allowing it to effectively identify problematic benchmark items.