While large language models have demonstrated impressive reasoning abilities, their extension to the audio modality, particularly within large audio-language models (LALMs), remains underexplored. Addressing this gap requires a systematic approach that involves a capable base model, high-quality reasoning-oriented audio data, and effective training algorithms. In this work, we present a comprehensive solution for audio logical reasoning (ALR) tasks: we introduce SoundMind, a dataset of 6,446 audio–text annotated samples specifically curated to support complex reasoning. Building on this resource, we propose SoundMind-RL, a rule-based reinforcement learning (RL) algorithm designed to equip audio-language models with robust audio–text reasoning capabilities. By fine-tuning Qwen2.5-Omni-7B on the proposed SoundMind dataset using SoundMind-RL, we achieve strong and consistent improvements over state-of-the-art baselines on the SoundMind benchmark. This work highlights the benefit of combining high-quality, reasoning-focused datasets with specialized RL techniques, and contributes to advancing auditory intelligence in language models. The code and dataset are publicly available at https://github.com/xid32/SoundMind.

LLM-as-Judge has emerged as a scalable alternative to human evaluation, enabling large language models (LLMs) to provide reward signals in trainings. While recent work has explored multi-agent extensions such as multi-agent debate and meta-judging to enhance evaluation quality, the question of how intrinsic biases manifest in these settings remains underexplored. In this study, we conduct a systematic analysis of four diverse bias types: position bias, verbosity bias, chain-of-thought bias, and bandwagon bias. We evaluate these biases across two widely adopted multi-agent LLM-as-Judge frameworks: Multi-Agent-Debate and LLM-as-Meta-Judge. Our results show that debate framework amplifies biases sharply after the initial debate, and this increased bias is sustained in subsequent rounds, while meta-judge approaches exhibit greater resistance. We further investigate the incorporation of PINE, a leading single-agent debiasing method, as a bias-free agent within these systems. The results reveal that this bias-free agent effectively reduces biases in debate settings but provides less benefit in meta-judge scenarios. Our work provides a comprehensive study of bias behavior in multi-agent LLM-as-Judge systems and highlights the need for targeted bias mitigation strategies in collaborative evaluation settings.

LLM-as-a-Judge has emerged as a promising alternative to human evaluators across various tasks, yet inherent biases—particularly position bias, the tendency to favor solutions based on their position within the prompt—compromise its reliability. This exploratory study evaluates position bias in LLM judges across pairwise and list-wise comparison settings, introducing three metrics: repetition stability, position consistency, and preference fairness. Our experiments, involving 15 LLM judges across MTBench and DevBench with 22 tasks and approximately 40 solution-generating models, result in over 150,000 evaluation instances. We identify Judge-Level, Candidate-Level, and Task-Level factors contributing to bias. The findings confirm that position bias is not due to random chance and varies significantly across judges and tasks. While position bias is weakly influenced by the length of prompt components, it is strongly affected by the quality gap between solutions. Our agreement and disagreement analysis among judges further provides insights into the distribution of judging difficulty across the dataset, and highlights the potential for dataset modifications.