We introduce a voice-agentic framework that learns one critical omni-understanding skill: knowing when to trust itself versus when to consult external audio perception. Our work is motivated by a crucial yet counterintuitive finding: naively fine-tuning an omni-model on both speech recognition and external sound understanding tasks often degrades performance, as the model can be easily misled by noisy hypotheses. To address this, our framework, Speech-Hands, recasts the problem as an explicit self-reflection decision. This learnable reflection primitive proves effective in preventing the model from being derailed by flawed external candidates. We show that this agentic action mechanism generalizes naturally from speech recognition to complex, multiple-choice audio reasoning. Across the OpenASR leaderboard, which includes seven domain-diverse speech datasets, Speech-Hands consistently outperforms strong baselines by 12.1% WER on the OpenASR benchmark. The model also achieves 77.37% accuracy and high F1 on audio QA decisions, showing robust generalization and reliability across diverse audio question answering datasets. By unifying perception and decision-making, our work offers a practical path toward more reliable and resilient audio intelligence.

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have transformed image captioning, shifting from concise captions to detailed descriptions. We introduce LOTUS, a leaderboard for evaluating detailed captions, addressing three main gaps in existing evaluations: lack of standardized criteria, bias-aware assessments, and user preference considerations. LOTUS comprehensively evaluates various aspects, including caption quality (e.g., alignment, descriptiveness), risks (e.g., hallucination), and societal biases (e.g., gender bias) while enabling preference-oriented evaluations by tailoring criteria to diverse user preferences. Our analysis of recent LVLMs reveals no single model excels across all criteria, while correlations emerge between caption detail and bias risks. Preference-oriented evaluations demonstrate that optimal model selection depends on user priorities.

Large language models (LLMs) have enhanced the capacity of vision-language models to caption visual text. This generative approach to image caption enrichment further makes textual captions more descriptive, improving alignment with the visual context. However, while many studies focus on the benefits of generative caption enrichment (GCE), are there any negative side effects? We compare standard-format captions and recent GCE processes from the perspectives of gender bias and hallucination, showing that enriched captions suffer from increased gender bias and hallucination. Furthermore, models trained on these enriched captions amplify gender bias by an average of 30.9% and increase hallucination by 59.5%. This study serves as a caution against the trend of making captions more descriptive.

We tackle societal bias in image-text datasets by removing spurious correlations between protected groups and image attributes. Traditional methods only target labeled attributes, ignoring biases from unlabeled ones. Using text-guided inpainting models, our approach ensures protected group independence from all attributes and mitigates inpainting biases through data filtering. Evaluations on multi-label image classification and image captioning tasks show our method effectively reduces bias without compromising performance across various models. Specifically, we achieve an average societal bias reduction of 46.1% in leakage-based bias metrics for multi-label classification and 74.8% for image captioning.