Audio-Language Model Evaluation

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are a major focus of recent AI research. However, most prior work focuses on static image understanding, while their ability to process sequential audio-video data remains underexplored. This gap highlights the need for a high-quality benchmark to systematically evaluate MLLM performance in a real-world setting. We introduce SONIC-O1, a comprehensive, fully human-verified benchmark of 60 hours (231 clips) spanning 13 real-world conversational domains with 4,958 annotations and demographic metadata. SONIC-O1 evaluates three capabilities: open-ended summarization, multiple-choice question (MCQ) answering, and temporal localization with supporting rationales (reasoning). Across closed- and open-source models, we find that the MCQ accuracy shows the smallest gap between model families, but the best closed-source model outperforms the best open-source model by 22.6% on temporal localization. We further observe accuracy gaps of up to 21.4% on temporal localization across demographic groups, indicating persistent disparities in model behaviour. SONIC-O1 provides an open evaluation suite for temporally grounded and demographically robust multimodal understanding. SONIC-O1 is publicly available for research: Project page (https://vectorinstitute.github.io/sonic-o1/), Dataset (https://huggingface.co/datasets/vector-institute/sonic-o1), GitHub (https://github.com/vectorinstitute/sonic-o1), Leaderboard (https://huggingface.co/spaces/vector-institute/sonic-o1-leaderboard).

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.

Audio-language pretraining (ALP) holds promise for learning general-purpose audio representation, yet remains underexplored. Crucially, there is no consensus on whether audio-language models can build effective general-purpose audio encoders, nor a systematic understanding of how pretraining objectives behave across diverse tasks and scales. We identify three key barriers: limited scale of audio-text corpora, limited coverage of audio attributes in existing caption corpora, and lack of systematic exploration and evaluation. To fill this gap, we present the first principled empirical study of ALP. We first introduce CaptionStew, a 10.7M caption dataset aggregating open-source audio-text corpora across multiple domains and captioning focuses. We then conduct the first comprehensive evaluation comparing contrastive and captioning objectives for learning audio representation across speech, music, and environmental sound tasks. Our results not only demonstrate that ALP yields competitive, transferable representations, but reveal critical trade-offs: contrastive learning offers superior data efficiency, while captioning exhibits better scalability. Furthermore, we find that the benefits of supervised initialization often diminish at larger scales, challenging common practices. By grounding these claims in empirical evidence, we establish a viable pathway toward general-purpose audio representation learning, guiding future research.

Recent advances in large audio language models (LALMs) have greatly enhanced multimodal conversational systems. However, existing benchmarks remain limited -- they are mainly English-centric, rely on synthetic speech, and lack comprehensive, discriminative evaluation across multiple dimensions. To address these gaps, we present Voice Chat Bot Bench (VCB Bench) -- a high-quality Chinese benchmark built entirely on real human speech. VCB Bench evaluates LALMs from three complementary perspectives: instruction following (including speech-level control beyond text commands), knowledge understanding (general knowledge, reasoning, and daily dialogue), and robustness (stability under perturbations in content, environment, and speaker traits). Experiments on representative LALMs reveal notable performance gaps and highlight future directions for improvement. VCB Bench provides a reproducible and fine-grained evaluation framework, offering standardized methodology and practical insights for advancing Chinese voice conversational models.

Recent advances in large audio language models (LALMs) have primarily been assessed using a multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) framework. However, subtle changes, such as shifting the order of choices, result in substantially different results. Existing MCQA frameworks do not account for this variability and report a single accuracy number per benchmark or category. We dive into the MCQA evaluation framework and conduct a systematic study spanning three benchmarks (MMAU, MMAR and MMSU) and four models: Audio Flamingo 2, Audio Flamingo 3, Qwen2.5-Omni-7B-Instruct, and Kimi-Audio-7B-Instruct. Our findings indicate that models are sensitive not only to the ordering of choices, but also to the paraphrasing of the question and the choices. Finally, we propose a simpler evaluation protocol and metric that account for subtle variations and provide a more detailed evaluation report of LALMs within the MCQA framework.

Large audio-language models (LALMs) are often used in tasks that involve reasoning over ordered options. An open question is whether their predictions are influenced by the order of answer choices, which would indicate a form of position bias and undermine their reliability. In this paper, we identify and analyze this problem in LALMs. We demonstrate that no model is immune to this bias through extensive experiments on six LALMs across three widely used benchmarks and their spoken counterparts. Shuffling the order of answer options can cause performance fluctuations of up to 24% and even change model rankings, raising concerns about the reliability of current evaluation practices. We also study permutation-based strategies and show that they can mitigate bias in most cases. Our work represents the first systematic investigation of this issue in LALMs, and we hope it raises awareness and motivates further research in this direction.