EEmo-Logic: A Unified Dataset and Multi-Stage Framework for Comprehensive Image-Evoked Emotion Assessment

In the context of today's high-pressure, aging society, the demand for large-scale emotional models capable of providing empathetic support is more critical than ever. However, existing benchmarks fail to simultaneously achieve ecological validity, signal clarity, and reliable fine-grained labeling. We introduce EmoS, a high-fidelity bilingual benchmark designed to resolve the limitations of ecological validity and noise in existing datasets by combining strictly filtered static slices with a dynamic Streaming Monologue subset. Supported by a rigorous dual-layer human annotation pipeline, EmoS provides trusted ground truth that captures continuous emotional evolution. Empirical results show that fine-tuning MLLMs (multimodal large language models) on EmoS yields significant gains over zero-shot baselines, laying the foundation for the training and evaluation of future emotion recognition models and empathy models. The dataset and code are publicly available at https://github.com/NLP2CT/EmoS.

Visual emotion understanding requires models not only to recognize emotional states, but also to why they arise and perform higher-level cognitive reasoning. However, existing benchmarks mainly focus on emotion recognition, offering limited support for grounded understanding and response-oriented analysis. To address this gap, we introduce \textbf{InsightVQA}, a large-scale dataset for hierarchical visual question answering on emotion understanding and cognitive reasoning. Building from 351K images collected from six public sources, we apply a rigorous multi-stage filtering pipeline to curate 138K high-confidence images. Each image is annotated at three hierarchical levels: perception QA for emotion and valence recognition, grounded understanding QA constructed from visual trigger extraction through constraint-guided generation, and cognition QA centered on response intent prediction and sequential insight reasoning. In total, InsightVQA contains 725K QA pairs. We further present \textbf{InsightVQA-Bench}, a high-quality evaluation benchmark comprising 30K samples for fine-grained evaluation. To support evaluation, we introduce \textbf{InsightNet}, an emotion-tuned baseline for MLLMs. Results demonstrate that InsightVQA poses significant challenges for grounded emotion understanding and reasoning.

This paper introduces a multi-label visual emotion analysis benchmark dataset for comprehensively evaluating the ability of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) to predict the emotions evoked by images. Recent user studies report an unintuitive finding: humans may prefer the predictions of MLLMs over the labels in existing datasets. We argue that this phenomenon stems from the suboptimal annotation scheme used in existing datasets, where each annotator is shown a single candidate emotion for each image and judges whether it is evoked or not. This approach is clearly limited because a single image can evoke multiple emotions with varying intensities. As a result, evaluations based on these datasets may underestimate the capabilities of MLLMs, yet an appropriate benchmark for evaluating such models remains lacking. To address this issue, we introduce a new multi-label benchmark dataset for visual emotion analysis toward MLLMs evaluation. We hire $20$ annotators per image and ask them to select all emotions they feel from an image. Then, we aggregate the votes across all annotators, providing a more reliable and representative dataset labeled with a distribution of emotions. The resulting dataset contains $10,344$ images with $236,998$ valid votes across eight emotions. Based on this benchmark dataset, we evaluate several recent models, including Qwen3-VL, OpenAI's GPT, Gemini, and Claude. We assess model performance on both dominant emotion prediction and emotion distribution prediction. Our results demonstrate the progress achieved by recent MLLMs while also indicating that substantial room for improvement remains. Furthermore, our experiments with LLM-as-a-judge show that the method does not consistently improve MLLMs' performance, indicating its limitations for the subjective task of visual emotion analysis.