COSI-Lab: Conference Living Lab for Modeling Multi-Perspective Multimodal Social Intention
Authors: Zonghuan Li, Litian Li, Arthur Mercier, Gara Dorta, Balint Dioszegi, Jose Morales-Vargas, Chenxu Hao, Ivan Kondyurin, Vanessa Begemann, Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock, Bernd Dudzik, Saunaq Chakrabarty, Sotiris Vacanas, Laura Cabrera-Quirós, Anne L. J. ter Wal, Vitaliy Popov, Jorge Castro-Godínez, Chirag Raman, Stephanie Tan, Hayley Hung
Organizations: Delft University of Technology · University of Greenwich · Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica · University of Hamburg · Imperial College London · University of Michigan Ann Arbor
COSI-Lab presents a multimodal multi-sensor dataset of a real interdisciplinary scientific workshop with 32 academics at an international conference. It captures ecologically valid social interactions in a weakly scripted setting consisting of two 30-minute mingling sessions with real professional and social consequences. We argue that intelligent systems could better handle subjective perceptions by modeling their multiplicity not as label noise but as an explainable perspective-driven reasoning process. We focus on the Apparent Intent Inference (AII) problem as determined by ex-situ observers and conceptualize intentions to be independent of the future. We contribute a novel annotation process for AII that accounts for a perceiver's own interpretative tendencies, quantitative and qualitative analyses of intent narratives with respect to diversity, plausibility and grounding, benchmark tasks for AII and relevant contextual factors, speech quality audio for all participants as well as privacy-preserving multi-modal environmental and wearable sensor data, enabling lexical and nonverbal behavior analysis; and the coupling of self-reported participant goals (30 minute to 3 hour) with annotated AII (seconds).
Figures & tables
Figure 1: COSI-Lab: The conference living lab for studying multi-perspective social intentions.
Data capture
Desiderata
Dataset
Scenario (Scripting)
Intention Representation
Narrative Annotation
Modalities
Annotation Size
D1
D2
D3
D4
PIE++ ( Khindkar et al., 2024 )
Pedestrian-Vehicle (Strong)
Categorical
Multi-annot. prediction
Video
5k instances of 1-2 sec.
✓
✓
×
N/A
PSI ( Jing et al., 2025 )
Pedestrian-Vehicle (Strong)
Categorical Free-form
Multi-annot. subjective
Video
196 vids of 15 sec.
✓
✓
✓
N/A
IntentQA ( Li et al., 2023 )
Skilled activities (Strong)
Categorical guided Q&A
Multi-annot. agreement
Video
5k vids of 44 sec.
×
( ✓ )
( ✓ )
✓
Ego-Exo4D ( Grauman et al., 2024 )
Skilled activities (Strong)
Expert free-form/reflections
Multi-perspective & Multi-annotator
Video, eye, IMU
5k takes of 2.6 min.
✓
×
✓
✓
I2M ( Umagami et al., 2026 )
Daily living (Strong)
Free-form descriptions
Single-perspective logs
Video, IMU
215 seqs of 2.8 min.
×
×
×
✓
Table 1: Comparison of human behavior datasets with intention and reasoning annotations.
Figure 2: Workshop procedure
Figure 3: Interaction structure and survey-reported goals across the two mingling sessions.
Figure 4: Conversation topic composition and redirection uptake by session and group size. M1/M2 denotes Mingle 1/2. Panel A: topic-family shares (T1: background; T2: research domains; T3: methods/data; T4: team/organization; T5: networking; T6: personal; T7: gender/diversity; T8: other). Panel B: realized uptake among valid topic-redirection attempts.
Figure 5: Left: Semantic similarity of the annotations and presence of emotions, cues, beliefs, intentions, and all 4 simultaneously. Right: Conversation group detection results (mean ± std over camera-wise 5-fold tests) and successful topic-transition detection (mean ± std over five folds).
Appendix figures & tables20 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: Dataset file structure. For more information, refer to the corresponding README.md files.
Figure 7: Example calibration footage for camera geometry estimation. The left panel shows a per-camera ChArUco-board recording for intrinsic calibration, and the right panel shows multi-camera footage used to estimate extrinsic camera poses after installation.
Survey wave
Cleaned rows
Missing ID rows
Duplicate ID rows
Unique IDs
Pre-workshop
34
0
0
34
Workshop
33
2
0
31
Post-workshop
32
0
0
32
Post-event
28
1
2
25
Appendix
Table 2: Availability of respondent-level matching IDs across survey waves. Cleaned response rows do not include column headers. Duplicate rows refer to extra rows sharing an already observed matching ID within the same survey.
Survey comparison
Matched unique IDs
Pre-workshop ∩ workshop
23
Pre-workshop ∩ post-workshop
22
Pre-workshop ∩ post-event
16
Workshop ∩ post-workshop
29
Workshop ∩ post-event
19
Post-workshop ∩ post-event
18
Appendix
Table 3: Exact cross-wave matching coverage based on the constructed respondent-level matching ID.
Width
600 mm
Height
400 mm
Rows
4
Columns
6
Checker width
90 mm
Dictionary
DICT_5X5_100
OpenCV legacy pattern
True
Appendix
Table 4: Charuco boards details
Figure 8: Illustration of the process of benchmarking task 2. (a)Segmentation mask from SAM3 model; (b)Inferred keypoints from VitPose; (c)Transferred 3D keypoints in space; (d)Illustration of the conversation group detection task.
Figure 9: Displayed a screen grab of the UI of Covfee.
Description
Explanation
Group
PAS
Wrong clip
AUC
PAS
Wrong clip
AUC
Held-out human
0.457
0.395
0.68
0.464
0.398
0.72
Paraphrased human
0.440
0.366
0.71
0.470
0.391
0.72
Atypical human
0.334
0.318
0.54
0.349
0.323
0.56
gemma
0.368
0.317
0.63
0.402
0.347
0.67
qwen3omni30b
0.402
0.358
0.63
0.425
0.375
0.66
Appendix
Table 5: PAS for known groups (HTS, max, matched pools; generic templates are scored against every clip). Wrong clip : the same items scored against a random other clip, one draw per item. It therefore differs slightly from the 20-draw baseline used in the text. AUC: probability that an item’s score on its own clip exceeds a score on a wrong clip ( 0.5 = no clip information). Clip-weighted means.
Metric
Result
Validation windows
12
Composition MAE
12.1
Composition RMSE
19.8
Mean total-variation distance
0.483
Pearson correlation
0.555
Concordance correlation coefficient
0.522
Appendix
Table 6: Human–human agreement for topic-composition annotation. Composition errors are reported in percentage points.
Metric
Result
Composition MAE
12.1
Composition RMSE
21.6
Mean total-variation distance
0.484
Dominant-topic accuracy
33.3%
Topic-presence precision
0.939
Topic-presence recall
0.585
Appendix
Table 7: Local LLM performance for topic composition against the human-adjudicated reference. Composition errors are reported in percentage points.
Judgment
Annotators
Eligible N
α
Agreement
Stage 1: ATTEMPT vs. NOT_ATTEMPT
2
22
0.366
68.2%
Stage 2: VALID vs. INVALID
3
36
0.094
57.7%
Stage 2: SUCCESS vs. FAILURE
up to 3
18
−0.170
61.5%
Appendix
Table 8: Human–human reliability for topic-redirection and uptake coding. Eligible N denotes cases with sufficient non- UNCERTAIN human judgments for the corresponding analysis.
Task
Reference N
Accuracy
Macro-F1
Stage 1: ATTEMPT vs. NOT_ATTEMPT
15
0.800
0.762
Stage 2: VALID vs. INVALID
33
0.424
0.388
Stage 2: SUCCESS vs. FAILURE
11
0.909
0.906
Appendix
Table 9: Local LLM performance for topic-redirection and uptake coding. Reference sample sizes differ because uncertain or unresolved cases are excluded, and Stage 2 outcome evaluation is conditional on validity.
trained
cam06
cam08
cam10
cam01
cam03
cam06
0.775±0.048
0.721±0.076
0.653±0.206
0.740±0.154
0.688±0.127
cam08
0.726±0.084
0.860±0.041
0.820±0.133
0.767±0.145
0.682±0.087
cam10
0.572±0.101
0.766±0.111
0.664±0.210
0.608±0.187
0.708±0.149
cam01
0.402±0.139
0.692±0.092
0.603±0.062
0.809±0.062
0.705±0.119
cam03
0.411±0.289
0.680±0.384
0.502±0.317
0.632±0.202
0.706±0.394
Appendix
Table 10: Conversation group detection results on DANTE Swofford et al. (2020) with T=1 (top) and T=2/3 (bottom)
trained
cam06
cam08
cam10
cam01
cam03
cam06
0.574±0.177
0.699±0.108
0.537±0.210
0.631±0.154
0.608±0.171
cam08
0.588±0.149
0.765±0.087
0.679±0.148
0.512±0.129
0.442±0.092
cam10
0.648±0.115
0.793±0.038
0.696±0.159
0.428±0.196
0.514±0.105
cam01
0.297±0.140
0.520±0.028
0.480±0.131
0.844±0.110
0.557±0.056
cam03
0.532±0.175
0.773±0.069
0.680±0.182
0.636±0.155
0.807±0.143
Appendix
Table 11: Conversation group detection results on LSTM-based model Tan et al. (2022) with T=1 (top) and T=2/3 (bottom)
Class
Source
Samples
Positive
Successful topic-redirection attempts
316
Negative
Failed topic-redirection attempts
148
Negative
Ordinary conversation
928
Total
1,392
Appendix
Table 12: Sample composition for Benchmark 3.
Model
Input
AUROC
AUPRC
LR (initiator)
KP
0.556±0.026
0.291±0.029
ACC
0.546±0.056
0.274±0.041
KP+ACC
0.568±0.043
0.296±0.049
TCN (initiator)
KP
0.596±0.074
0.334±0.086
ACC
0.483±0.049
0.218±0.029
KP+ACC
0.565±0.036
0.286±0.058
Appendix
Table 13: Benchmark 3 results for successful topic-transition detection using the primary +10 s post-turn observation horizon. Values are the unweighted mean ± sample standard deviation across five held-out test folds.
Model
Input
+2 s
+5 s
+10 s
LR
KP
0.536±0.031
0.545±0.025
0.556±0.026
ACC
0.516±0.042
0.525±0.052
0.546±0.056
KP+ACC
0.544±0.034
0.555±0.039
0.568±0.043
TCN
KP
0.572±0.061
0.549±0.067
0.596±0.074
ACC
0.503±0.070
0.488±0.068
0.483±0.049
KP+ACC
0.570±0.050
0.596±0.043
0.565±0.036
Appendix
Table 14: AUROC for successful topic-transition detection using different post-turn observation horizons. Values are the unweighted mean ± sample standard deviation across five held-out test folds.
Model
Input
+2 s
+5 s
+10 s
LR
KP
0.272±0.044
0.277±0.040
0.291±0.029
ACC
0.264±0.034
0.267±0.042
0.274±0.041
KP+ACC
0.282±0.037
0.293±0.040
0.296±0.049
TCN
KP
0.309±0.032
0.275±0.032
0.334±0.086
ACC
0.229±0.029
0.242±0.048
0.218±0.029
KP+ACC
0.284±0.033
0.349±0.063
0.286±0.058
Appendix
Table 15: AUPRC for successful topic-transition detection using different post-turn observation horizons. Values are the unweighted mean ± sample standard deviation across five held-out test folds. The positive-class prevalence is 0.227.
Model
Input
+2 s
+5 s
+10 s
LR
KP
0.524±0.073
0.528±0.073
0.534±0.037
ACC
0.557±0.026
0.568±0.029
0.563±0.025
KP+ACC
0.547±0.071
0.544±0.057
0.552±0.032
TCN
KP
0.519±0.020
0.528±0.041
0.520±0.027
ACC
0.504±0.051
0.508±0.082
0.502±0.078
KP+ACC
0.541±0.031
0.538±0.042
0.549±0.079
Appendix
Table 16: AUROC for the secondary topic-redirection attempt-detection task using different post-turn observation horizons. Values are the unweighted mean ± sample standard deviation across five held-out test folds.
Model
Input
+2 s
+5 s
+10 s
LR
KP
0.382±0.066
0.383±0.072
0.387±0.056
ACC
0.384±0.034
0.401±0.040
0.398±0.034
KP+ACC
0.395±0.065
0.399±0.062
0.411±0.054
TCN
KP
0.357±0.023
0.380±0.046
0.373±0.035
ACC
0.354±0.029
0.357±0.053
0.342±0.039
KP+ACC
0.393±0.030
0.383±0.040
0.392±0.047
Appendix
Table 17: AUPRC for the secondary topic-redirection attempt-detection task using different post-turn observation horizons. Values are the unweighted mean ± sample standard deviation across five held-out test folds. The positive-class prevalence is 0.333.
Human social perception is incremental: we infer intent before an utterance is complete, revise our interpretation as new cues arrive, and attend to specific facial, gestural, or prosodic signals that shape social meaning. Current multimodal LLM benchmarks largely evaluate final-answer understanding over complete episodes, rewarding post-hoc recognition of social meaning rather than the unfolding perception required for real-time interaction. Drawing on interactionally embedded Gestalt principles of multimodal human communication, we introduce GesBench: a human-grounded benchmark for cue-level social perception in multimodal LLMs. GesBench uses cumulative sub-utterance clips to measure when models form stable interpretations of speaker intention and social affordance, and human gaze-guided corruption to evaluate whether regions attended by humans are functionally important for model judgments. Built from more than 6000 utterance-level clips from scripted and unscripted conversational datasets, GesBench includes human annotations of unfolding judgments and gaze on a representative subset. Across open and closed multimodal models, we find a clear human-model gap: humans form predictive understandings early and revise more often, while models often hedge or repeat across different clips. GesBench shifts social evaluation from whether models eventually recognize meaning to when and where that meaning is formed. Our codes are publicly available at https://anonymous.4open.science/status/GesBench-share-212C.
Zonghuan Li, Hayley Hung, Chirag Raman
Department of EEMCS, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands
Human social communication, such as affection and intent, is often conveyed in highly implicit ways, where underlying meanings are expressed through indirect, socially and culturally grounded signals rather than explicit statements. Such implicit social contexts are pervasive in real-world interactions, yet there remains a lack of a formal and systematic framework for studying them. In this paper, we introduce Implicit Social Context Analysis (MoCA), a novel task that systematically models implicit social scenarios along three key dimensions: affection, intent, and stance. We construct a high-quality benchmark containing 3,108 multimodal instances collected from real-world sources, with fine-grained cognitive annotations revealing who expresses what toward whom, as well as how and why it is conveyed. Using the MoCA dataset, we show that state-of-the-art multimodal large language models struggle significantly with this task because of their reliance on explicit cues and limited ability to reason over latent social contexts. To address this challenge, we propose Conflict-Driven Abductive Reasoning (CoDAR), a novel framework that models the discrepancy between observed expressions and expected truthful behavior as cognitive conflict, thereby enabling the inference of hidden mental states. Extensive experiments demonstrate that CoDAR substantially improves model performance. Nevertheless, a large gap from human reasoning remains, highlighting the fundamental difficulty of implicit social understanding.
Wenhao Xu, Kaiwen Zhang, Hao Li +10
National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. · Wuhan University, Wuhan, China. · University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Current AI interaction models treat the prompt as the primary object of exchange, omitting a critical layer: the user's latent source intent, the goal state preceding and motivating the prompt. Here we introduce Intent Signal Theory (IST), a computational framework that formalises this missing intent layer. IST distinguishes four objects routinely conflated: latent source intent (I*), observable intent proxy (I-hat), encoded carrier (P), and model output (O). It formalises dimensional weights, encoding masks, structural and fidelity recovery scores, and public-private intent decomposition. The Theorem of Irreversible Intent Loss establishes that private intent absent from the carrier cannot be recovered beyond generic substitution. Evidence from four companion studies spanning six LLMs, three languages and three task domains shows structural-fidelity splits, human-validated metric dissociation, and weight-tolerance plateaus consistent with IST's predictions. IST reframes prompt engineering as intent-protocol design and identifies a computational layer that current AI systems lack.
Gang Peng
Huizhou Lateni AI Technology Co., Ltd., Huizhou, China · Huizhou University, Huizhou, China