Findings show answer-only evaluation obscures important grounding failures and position ANCHOR as a testbed for evaluating accurate and evidence-aligned audio-visual reasoning.
Abstract
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) perform well on audio-visual question answering, but correct answers do not necessarily imply that their stated reasoning is grounded in relevant perceptual evidence. Existing benchmarks mainly evaluate final-answer accuracy, offering limited insight into whether model-generated rationales correctly identify visual regions, temporal intervals, and audio events supporting predictions. We introduce ANCHOR, a benchmark and evaluation framework for measuring grounded-rationale alignment in multimodal reasoning, comprising 2,319 videos and 8,272 question-answer pairs with structured reasoning traces, temporal evidence, spatial bounding boxes, and salient audio cues, including a human-refined test set of 224 videos and 975 question-answer pairs. We separately measure answer correctness, hallucination, logical divergence, and conciseness, with direct spatial and temporal grounding measurements on a focused subset. Across the full benchmark, twelve contemporary MLLMs show a substantial alignment gap: models with comparable answer performance can differ markedly in whether their explanations are supported by annotated evidence. On a matched subset of 100 videos and 446 question-answer pairs, rankings remain highly stable across human-refined, Gemini-generated, and GPT-generated references (mean Pearson r=0.99), providing evidence against model-reference circularity within this subset. Grounding-cue ablations of three MLLMs on the full human-refined test set reveal a consistent modality hierarchy: removing video reduces accuracy by 38.4-41.8 points, while removing bounding boxes (3.2-7.7 points) and audio (4.2-5.6 points) causes smaller, complementary, model-dependent drops. These findings show answer-only evaluation obscures important grounding failures and position ANCHOR as a testbed for evaluating accurate and evidence-aligned audio-visual reasoning.
Omni LLMs can naturally locate key audio and visual evidence and integrate information across modalities for audiovisual reasoning. Existing audio-visual reasoning benchmarks that mainly rely on multiple-choice questions usually score models solely based on answer correctness, making it difficult to assess whether a mo...
Xiao-Xing Hu, Wen-Xi Yao, Chao-Yuan Shi et al.· 0 citations
This work proposes 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.
Yu-Pei Li, Qi-Yang Sun, Mohamed Mady et al.· 0 citations
We introduce TRACE (Trustworthy Reasoning from Acoustic Cues and Evidence), a benchmark for diagnosing the reliability of large audio-language models (LALMs) by revealing when, and under what acoustic conditions these models behave untrustworthily. Existing benchmarks primarily measure whether a model produces the corr...
Giovana Morais, Yujin Kim, Atilay Kucukoglu et al.· 0 citations
Results show that explicit evidence grounding can be integrated directly into long-video reasoning without sacrificing answer accuracy, and structured skill inference improves Grounded accuracy over free-form reasoning.
Xi-Yang Wu, Zong-Xia Li, Sheng Zhang et al.· 0 citations
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) often answer visual reasoning questions by relying on linguistic priors rather than task-relevant visual evidence. Textual chain-of-thought reasoning can partially mitigate this issue by encouraging models to decompose visual questions into intermediate evidence-seeking steps, b...
This work introduces MISHAP-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark with 12,000 challenging open-ended question-audio pairs and a rigorous evaluation pipeline covering two hallucination categories, and proposes a groundedness judge that uses reference rubrics and judge prompts guided by human annotations.
Wen-Soi Zhi, Giulio Segalini, Jian-Jia Chen et al.· 0 citations