Omni-Modal Dissonance Benchmark: Systematically Breaking Modality Consensus to Probe Robustness and Calibrated Abstention

View PDF

Abstract:Existing omni-modal benchmarks attempt to measure modality-specific contributions, but their measurements are confounded: naturally co-occurring modalities carry correlated yet unequal information, making it unclear whether results reflect true modality reliance or information asymmetry. We introduce OMD-Bench, where all modalities are initially congruent - each presenting the same anchor, an object or event independently perceivable through video, audio, and text - which we then systematically corrupt to isolate each modality's contribution. We also evaluate calibrated abstention: whether models appropriately refrain from answering when evidence is conflicting. The benchmark comprises 4,080 instances spanning 27 anchors across eight corruption conditions. Evaluating ten omni-modal models under zero-shot and chain-of-thought prompting, we find that models over-abstain when two modalities are corrupted yet under-abstain severely when all three are, while maintaining high confidence (~60-100%) even under full corruption. Chain-of-thought prompting improves abstention alignment with human judgment but amplifies overconfidence rather than mitigating it. OMD-Bench provides a diagnostic benchmark for diagnosing modality reliance, robustness to cross-modal inconsistency, and uncertainty calibration in omni-modal systems.

Subjects:

Machine Learning (cs.LG)

Cite as: arXiv:2603.27187 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2603.27187v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.27187

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Zabir Al Nazi [view email] [v1] Sat, 28 Mar 2026 08:29:15 UTC (1,391 KB)