AVTrustBench: Assessing and Enhancing Reliability and Robustness in Audio-Visual LLMs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rapid advancement of Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs), several diagnostic benchmarks have recently been developed to assess these models' multi-modal reasoning proficiency. However, these benchmarks are restricted to assessing primarily the visual aspect and do not examine the holistic audio-visual (AV) understanding. Moreover, currently, there are no benchmarks that investigate the capabilities of AVLLMs to calibrate their responses when presented with perturbed inputs. To this end, we introduce Audio-Visual Trustworthiness assessment Benchmark (AVTrustBench), comprising 600K samples spanning over 9 meticulously crafted tasks, evaluating the capabilities of AVLLMs across three distinct dimensions: Adversarial attack, Compositional reasoning, and Modality-specific dependency. Using our benchmark we extensively evaluate 13 state-of-the-art AVLLMs. The findings reveal that the majority of existing models fall significantly short of achieving human-like comprehension, offering valuable insights for future research directions. To alleviate the limitations in the existing approaches, we further propose a robust, model-agnostic calibrated audio-visual preference optimization based training strategy CAVPref, obtaining a gain up to 30.19% across all 9 tasks. We will publicly release our code and benchmark to facilitate future research in this direction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it