Efficient Agentic Audio-Visual Question Answering through Toolset Pruning and Modality Consolidation
Authors: Yi Wang, Tianzi Wang, Peter Bell
Organizations: School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, UK · Department of Systems Engineering and Engineering Management, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR
Fine-grained audio-visual question answering (AVQA) requires models to resolve complex cross-modal correspondences and temporally grounding from sparsely distributed evidence. Omni-modal agents, which autonomously orchestrate perception tools to actively collect evidence, achieve strong performance, but it remains unclear whether active perception from both audio and visual modalities depends on broad specialized toolsets, especially audio or visual modality-specific tools. Such systems may also introduce long execution trajectories and substantial inference cost. We investigate whether comparable performance can be retained with a compact workflow exposing only essential perceptual capabilities. Starting from the specialized-tool OmniAgent, we conduct staged controlled experiments that prune the toolset and progressively consolidate modality-specific tools into omni-modal tools, motivating a two-tool agent comprising only Omni-modal captioning and Omni-modal QA. Across three widely used AVQA benchmarks, our compact agent achieves comparable or better accuracy than the specialized-tool agent while reducing inference cost by around 70%.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the proposed framework. During inference, a text-only planner dynamically selects between two omni-modal tool interfaces or returns the final answer. A prompt-level caption-first policy provides initial global context without fixing the remainder of the evidence-acquisition trajectory.
Method
Inference paradigm
# Tools
Acc. (%) ↑
Calls ↓
Input / output tok. ↓
Est. cost ()\downarrow$
Latency (s) ↓
Daily-Omni ( n=1,197 )
Gemini-2.5-Flash
Direct OmniLLM
–
77.03
0.000
5.048k / 0.006k
0.00154
–
OmniAgent
Specialized agent
8
77.53
7.270
49.661k / 7.462k
0.07142
118.32
Ours
Compact agent
2
78.86
1.550
13.000k / 1.670k
0.01910
14.90
AVUT ( n=1,734 )
Gemini-2.5-Flash
Direct OmniLLM
–
79.35
0.000
11.457k / 0.149k
0.00437
–
Table 1: Accuracy and inference efficiency across three audio-visual QA benchmarks. All direct Gemini-2.5-Flash and OmniAgent results are obtained from our own runs; OmniAgent is reproduced based on its released code. All efficiency values are averages per question. Bold indicates the highest accuracy within each benchmark; underlining marks the more efficient agentic system. Input/output tokens include all model calls. Latency is the mean per-question retry-adjusted wall-clock time.
Method
Overall
≤1 min
1–3 min
3–5 min
>5 min
AVUT (bucket n : 1,125 / 571 / 7 / 31)
Gemini-2.5-Flash
79.35
78.22
81.79
85.71
74.19
OmniAgent (reproduced)
77.16
75.82
79.86
85.71
74.19
Ours
80.57
79.11
83.19
85.71
83.87
Δ (ours − direct)
+ 1.22
+ 0.89
+ 1.40
+ 0.00
+ 9.68
WorldSense (bucket n : 1,059 / 1,386 / 348 / 379)
Table 2: Accuracy by video duration for direct Gemini-2.5-Flash inference, reproduced OmniAgent, and our compact two-tool agent.
Setting
Included tool groups
Acc. (%) ↑
Calls ↓
Input / output tok. ↓
Est. cost ()\downarrow$
− A
C + Q + E + M
77.60 ± 2.12
7.667
31.133k / 4.284k
0.05729
− E
C + Q + A + M
78.67 ± 0.92
7.853
30.891k / 4.911k
0.06226
− A − E
C + Q + M
78.93 ± 1.85
7.973
30.386k / 4.470k
0.05867
− C
Q + E + A + M
75.47 ± 1.67
6.445
26.264k / 4.101k
0.05258
− Q
C + E + A + M
62.13 ± 2.57
5.005
15.639k / 4.103k
0.04573
− M
C + Q + E + A
78.13 ± 2.31
6.568
26.398k / 4.360k
0.05488
Table 3: Stage 1 tool-group ablation on the selected Daily-Omni validation subset ( n=125 ). C is global audio captioning; Q groups all QA tools; E groups audio-event listing and localization; A is automatic speech recognition; and M is video metadata. Accuracy and efficiency metrics are mean ± sample standard deviation over three runs.
System
Controlled change
Acc. (%) ↑
Calls ↓
Input / output tok. ↓
Est. cost ()\downarrow$
Stage 2: Workflow and modality consolidation
0
Port to DSPy implementation
75.47 ± 1.22
4.309
19.783k / 6.414k
0.08046
1
Gemini deterministic sampling
76.00 ± 1.60
4.232
19.771k / 6.261k
0.07797
2
Adopt compact workflow
72.27 ± 1.22
3.005
11.344k / 3.551k
0.04293
3
Global audio captioning → Omni Captioning Tool
75.73 ± 1.67
2.547
15.520k / 4.458k
0.05033
4
Add caption-first instruction
77.87 ± 0.46
2.397
14.003k / 3.722k
0.03988
Table 4: Combined Stage 2 and Stage 3 ablations on the selected Daily-Omni validation subset ( n=125 ). Accuracy is reported as mean ± sample standard deviation over three runs; ∗ indicates medium planner reasoning effort; all other settings use high reasoning effort.
Figure 2: Accuracy-efficiency trade-offs across Systems 0–11 on the selected Daily-Omni validation subset. The corresponding latency values are presented in Appendix C , to save space for Table 4 .
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Overall
≤1 min
1–3 min
3–5 min
>5 min
OmniAgent (reproduced)
59.30
57.13
60.82
54.02
64.64
ours (w/o Omni clip tool)
58.39
55.43
59.52
56.90
63.85
extended (+ clip-level Omni QA)
57.79
57.22
58.51
53.16
60.95
Appendix
Table 5: WorldSense accuracy (%) by video duration for the reproduced specialized-tool OmniAgent, our two-tool system, and the same system with the clip-level Omni QA tool added back. The duration buckets contain 1,059, 1,386, 348, and 379 questions, respectively.
Component
Model
Reasoning
Temp.
Top- p
Top- k
Max output
Seed
Planner
o3
medium
not sent
–
–
32,768
1234
Captioning and QA tools
Gemini-2.5-Flash
provider default
0.0
1.0
0
4,096
1234
Appendix
Table 6: Model and sampling parameters for the proposed system. Maximum output lengths are measured in tokens.
Package
Version
Role
DSPy
3.2.1
Proposed pipeline
LiteLLM
1.82.6
Model/API routing
LangChain
1.1.0
OmniAgent reproduction
Appendix
Table 7: Principal software versions used in the experiments.
System
Latency (s) ↓
System
Latency (s) ↓
0
64.73±8.64
6
21.43±2.95
1
61.84±7.02
7
24.54±2.26
2
39.33±9.55
8
22.03±3.13
3
36.37±9.43
9
14.90±2.40
4
29.35±6.65
10
18.93±4.98
5
24.50±6.45
11
22.81±1.56
Appendix
Table 8: Latency (excluding error handling retry) per question for the controlled ablations. Values are mean ± sample standard deviation over three runs.
Role and Accessible Evidence: You are the planning/reasoning model in an audio-visual question answering ReAct system. You CANNOT watch the video directly. You can only reason over (1) the user question and options, (2) observations returned by the captioner tool, and (3) observations returned by the perceptual tool.
Tool Interfaces: There are two different tools. ask_caption calls the captioner model; use it only to obtain a factual timestamped audio-visual caption of the whole video. ask_perception calls the perceptual model; use it only after reading the caption, to ask any audio-visual perception question that may help answer the user question.
Required Workflow: (1) The first tool call must be ask_caption so that you can observe what happens in the video. (2) From the second tool call onward, freely choose ask_caption or ask_perception based on the evidence you still need. You may call either tool multiple times. (3) Return the final answer as soon as the available evidence is sufficient.
Tool-Call Freedom after the First Caption: ask_perception may ask any audio, visual, or audio-visual perception question. The perceptual question may quote, reuse, or directly ask the original user question and options, and does not have to be narrowly targeted or limited to missing or ambiguous evidence. ask_caption may be called at any later step and is not limited to one call.
Budget and Constraints: Each decision includes turn_index and max_turns . max_turns is the total tool-call budget, including the required first ask_caption call. You may make at most max_turns tool calls. If the budget is exhausted, you will be required to return a final answer using the evidence already collected. Do not call ask_perception before the first ask_caption observation. For ask_caption , request the default factual whole-video caption by using empty arguments. Do not output a final answer before receiving the first caption observation. Do not output Markdown fences.
Action Schema: Return exactly one JSON object. For a caption observation, return {"action": "tool", "tool_name": "ask_caption", "arguments": {}} . For a perceptual observation, return {"action": "tool", "tool_name": "ask_perception", "arguments": {"perceptual_question": "..."}} . When the evidence is sufficient, return {"action": "final", "answer": "<single option label>", "reasoning_summary": "<brief explanation>"} . Return JSON only.
Budget-Exhaustion Instruction: Max turns reached. Do not call any tool. Return exactly one final JSON object now: {"action": "final", "answer": "<single option label>", "reasoning_summary": "<brief explanation>"} .
Appendix
Table 9: Planner workflow and action-schema prompt used by the proposed system.
Omni Captioning Tool: You are an audio-visual captioning system. Given a video, produce a detailed timestamped shot list describing all salient events. Requirements: Be 100% factual; describe all salient events and changes that is visible or audible. Include: Visual elements (scenes, objects, actions); Audio elements (sounds, music); Speech content (who speaks and what is said, if clear). Provide timestamps for each event.
Omni QA Tool: Answer the question directly using only observable video/audio evidence. Do not guess beyond evidence. Question: {perceptual_question} Return JSON with keys answer and evidence .
Appendix
Table 10: Prompts for the two tools in the proposed system. Both tools use Gemini-2.5-Flash with the same audio-visual input; their roles differ through these instructions.
Task type
Full benchmark
Val125
AV Event Alignment
238 (19.88%)
24 (19.20%)
Comparative
131 (10.94%)
14 (11.20%)
Context Understanding
193 (16.12%)
20 (16.00%)
Event Sequence
306 (25.56%)
33 (26.40%)
Inference
154 (12.87%)
16 (12.80%)
Reasoning
175 (14.62%)
18 (14.40%)
Appendix
Table 11: Question counts and proportions by task type in the complete Daily-Omni benchmark and the stratified validation subset used for the controlled ablations.
Benchmark
Composition used in this work
Provenance and documentation
Daily-Omni
684 videos and 1,197 English multiple-choice questions across six task types; clips span 30 or 60 seconds.
Videos are drawn from AudioSet, Video-MME, and FineVideo. The dataset paper describes human review of generated questions but does not report a separate PII or offensive-content audit.
AVUT
The AV-Human partition: 698 videos and 1,734 expert-annotated English questions across 18 audio-centric domains.
Videos were collected from publicly available YouTube content. The release provides links rather than hosting or redistributing the video files and directs users to comply with YouTube’s terms of service.
WorldSense
1,662 audio-visual videos and 3,172 multiple-choice questions spanning 8 domains, 67 subcategories, and 26 tasks, annotated by 80 professional annotators.
The dataset paper reports collection from public sources, removal of personally identifying information, and a second manual quality check for ethical violations. It is intended for academic evaluation of real-world omni-modal understanding.
Appendix
Table 12: Documentation of the benchmark artifacts used in this work. Counts and curation statements follow the corresponding dataset papers ( Zhou et al., 2025b ; Yang et al., 2025b ; Hong et al., 2025 ) .
Method
Whole benchmark
Video-disjoint held-out
Gemini-2.5-Flash
77.03 (922/1,197)
77.09 (737/956)
OmniAgent (reproduced)
77.53 (928/1,197)
77.30 (739/956)
Ours
78.86 (944/1,197)
79.08 (756/956)
Appendix
Table 13: Daily-Omni accuracy (%) on the complete benchmark and after excluding every video represented in the Val125 development subset.
Multi-hop audio-visual reasoning remains challenging for Omni-LLMs, as relevant evidence is often sparse, temporally dispersed, and distributed across both audio and visual streams. Existing benchmarks provide limited investigation of this setting, typically involving only a limited number of modalities, relevant temporal segments, or reasoning steps. In this work, we introduce MOV-Bench, a benchmark containing 519 carefully curated questions that require multi-hop reasoning over temporally dispersed audio-visual evidence. Evaluations on MOV-Bench reveal that current Omni-LLMs still struggle with multi-hop cross-modal reasoning. To address this challenge, we further propose AOP-Agent, an efficient agentic framework built on open-source Omni-LLMs for active omni-modal perception. By combining a hierarchical omni-modal memory with a collaborative observe-reflect-replan loop, AOP-Agent enables open-source Omni-LLMs to perform active perception without additional training or proprietary models. Experiments on MOV-Bench and OmniVideoBench demonstrate that AOP-Agent consistently improves reasoning performance, with particularly notable gains on long videos and reasoning-intensive questions.
We present OmniSeek, an agentic framework that transforms an Omni Large Language Model (Omni-LLM) into an active, multi-turn reasoning agent with native tool use. Rather than passively processing an entire audio-visual sequence in a single forward pass, OmniSeek makes evidence acquisition part of the reasoning process: it dynamically decides whether to look or listen, and over which temporal window, to retrieve sparse but critical evidence across different modalities within long contexts. Through an iterative multi-turn protocol, the retrieved raw audio or visual segments are appended back into the context to support subsequent reasoning. To cold-start this capability, we build a data engine that synthesizes OmniTraj-170K, a corpus of multi-hop Chain-of-Thought trajectories with interleaved audio and visual evidence. We first supervise the model on these trajectories to instill multi-turn tool-use behavior, and then further optimize the policy via a two-stage reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards. Moreover, we introduce an Audio-Visual Necessity objective that explicitly rewards successful trajectories whose reasoning depends on both modalities, discouraging single-modality shortcuts. Extensive experiments across a wide range of benchmarks demonstrate that OmniSeek learns adaptive cross-modal evidence seeking and consistently improves audio-visual reasoning performance.
Current automated pipelines for audio-visual Question Answering (QA) generally adopt a ``video-caption-QA'' paradigm. However, these methods typically segment videos into short clips and generate separate descriptions for audio and visual modalities. This decoupled processing severs inherent associations between sounds and their visual sources, while independent clip processing often causes inconsistent descriptions of the same entity across segments. Furthermore, coupling long-text comprehension and QA synthesis into a single step often restricts models to localized events, yielding questions lacking long-term temporal connections and deep cross-modal reasoning. To address these issues, we propose an automated data engine featuring two mechanisms: (1) Entity-Anchored Video Scripting transforms videos into structured scripts, comprising summaries, main entity lists, and segment-wise audio-visual descriptions. The entity list serves as a global prior to ensure cross-segment referential consistency and reconstruct audio-visual associations. (2) Clue-Guided QA Generation prompts models to first mine cross-segment, multimodal clues from the script, and subsequently generate QA pairs based on these high-value clues. Leveraging this pipeline, we construct the instruction-tuning dataset OmniVideo-100K and a human-verified test set, OmniVideo-Test. Fine-tuning VITA-1.5, Qwen2.5-Omni-7B and Qwen3-Omni-30B on OmniVideo-100K yields performance gains of up to 20.59% on OmniVideo-Test, demonstrating strong generalization (up to 12.64% improvements) across established benchmarks like Daily-Omni and JointAVBench.