AffectOmni: RL-Verifiable People-Centric Grounded Affective Reasoning for Social and Art-Related Scenes
Authors: Yibo Wang, Rui Yang, Jisheng Dang, Bimei Wang, Yitao Wu, Pengfei Cao, Wencan Zhang, Hong Peng, +2 more
Organizations: Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China · Hainan University, Haikou, China · School of Computing, National University of Singapore, Singapore
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) achieve strong performance on VQA and scene understanding, yet affective reasoning remains vulnerable to shortcut behavior. Models may predict correct answers while neglecting people-centric cues such as micro expressions and body language, which weakens traceability and external verification. Prior reinforcement learning approaches mainly reward context or logical coherence without explicitly enforcing attention to human evidence. In addition, LLM as a Judge scoring often suffers from score clustering, which reduces reward discriminability. We propose AffectOmni, a GRPO trained framework for verifiable affective reasoning. AffectOmni introduces People Focus and Temporal Order rewards to encourage people-centric evidence selection and temporally structured reasoning, and it adopts within-group comparative scoring to produce more stable and discriminative reward signals. For verification, a Thinking Summarizer converts free form rationales into executable evidence instructions, which are grounded into pixel level evidence regions via SAM3 to provide an externally auditable interface outside the training loop. Experiments on IntentBench, Daily Omni, and WorldSense show consistent improvements over open source 7B scale baselines, including gains of 4.66% on emotion recognition and +14.29% on temporally sensitive tasks. Code is available at https://github.com/eliot127825-rgb/AffectOmni_nobody.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : Shortcut reasoning vs. human-centric reasoning. Left: without People Focus reward, evidence attribution drifts to background cues, leading to an incorrect answer. Right: with People Focus reward, evidence anchors on human cues such as hand placement and posture change, enabling evidence-grounded affective inference. The displayed frame is a representative snapshot from the full video, previous events provide context, while human cues provide discriminative evidence.
Fig. 2 : AffectOmni framework. The pipeline consists of three stages. (1) LOCATE applies GRPO training with human-centric rewards ( Rppl , Rtmp ) and comparative scoring to guide evidence-grounded reasoning. (2) REASON generates structured output and compresses the reasoning chain into a Minimal Evidence Package (MEP) via a Thinking Summarizer. (3) VERIFY grounds the MEP to pixel-level masks using SAM3, enabling post-hoc auditing of whether the evidence claims can be localized in the visual input. Stars indicate our key contributions. We further evaluate the verification module in Section V .
Fig. 3 : Visualization of free-form reasoning transformed into structured evidence, i.e., key points, focus objects, and SAM3 instructions for SAM3 based pixel level grounding.
Methods
LMM
Why
How
What
When
Who/Which
Other
Emotion
Deception
Avg
Proprietary MLLMs
GPT-4o †
–
61.46
55.69
60.00
35.71
76.00
63.31
60.99
59.00
59.98
GPT-o1 † (think)
–
68.19
65.82
66.04
57.14
76.00
68.83
67.26
59.50
66.69
Gemini-2.5-Pro † (think)
–
68.57
67.41
65.12
57.14
64.00
70.03
68.23
60.00
67.15
Open-Source MLLMs
MiniCPM-o
8B
57.87
53.48
57.14
57.14
68.00
61.14
23.85
49.50
54.51
TABLE I : Comparison on IntentBench. We report category-wise intent understanding and social reasoning performance. Models marked with † are proprietary. The last three rows are ablation variants of AffectOmni built incrementally on HumanOmniV2 by adding People-Focus ( Rppl ), Temporal-Order ( Rtmp ), and both rewards jointly (Full Model).
Method
Context
Infer.
Reason.
60s
Avg
Gemini 2.0 Flash †
63.73
76.62
75.43
56.57
67.84
Gemini 2.0 Flash Lite †
58.03
74.03
72.00
53.01
61.32
Unified-IO-2 (8B)
26.42
35.06
29.71
30.00
28.24
VideoLLaMA2 (7B)
35.75
40.91
34.29
31.82
35.17
Qwen2.5-Omni (7B)
38.86
57.79
61.71
38.36
47.45
Ola (7B)
39.89
61.03
66.28
48.72
49.87
TABLE II : Comparison with existing models on Daily-Omni. Models marked with † are proprietary. We report accuracy (%) on representative sub-dimensions; full results are provided in the supplemental material.
Method
Tech
Film
Perform.
Music
Avg
Claude 3.5 Sonnet †
43.70
36.50
30.70
33.90
34.80
GPT-4o †
48.00
43.50
41.90
42.70
42.60
Gemini 1.5 Pro †
53.70
50.40
52.40
42.00
48.00
Unified-IO-2 XXL (7B)
27.10
23.70
25.50
27.30
25.90
VideoLLaMA2 (7B)
29.40
24.50
26.20
27.10
25.40
VITA-1.5 (7B)
38.20
39.80
41.20
39.90
36.90
TABLE III : Comparison with existing models on WorldSense. Models marked with † are proprietary. We report accuracy (%) on representative domains; full results are provided in the supplemental material.
Configuration
Emotion
Deception
When
Why
Avg
Baseline (Acc-only)
80.78
66.50
57.14
66.05
69.23
+ People-Focus ( Rppl )
84.23
63.50
57.14
66.48
69.78
+ Temporal-Order ( Rtmp )
83.67
60.50
57.14
64.33
69.62
Full Model
85.44
62.50
71.43
66.91
71.89
TABLE IV : We report accuracy (%) on IntentBench across key categories. All variants share the same base model and training setup, and differ only in the enabled reward terms, showing the marginal gain brought by each component.
Metric
Independent
Comparative
CV
0.153
0.325
Within-Group CV
0.049
0.138
IntentBench Avg (%)
69.78
71.89
TABLE V : Comparison of scoring strategies. “Ind.” denotes independent scoring. “Comp.” denotes our comparative scoring. CV is the coefficient of variation, computed as standard deviation over mean.
Fig. 4 : Reward Signal Discrimination Analysis. Each arc represents a score interval (1–10 scale), with arc length proportional to the percentage of samples falling in that interval. Left (Independent): LLM as a Judge scores each candidate in isolation, causing severe high score clustering, over 73% of scores fall in the 9–10 range. Right (Comparative): within-group comparative scoring forces relative ranking among candidates, yielding a more balanced distribution with meaningful differentiation across the full score spectrum.
Fig. 5 : Reasoning to evidence grounding framework. The framework connects structured reasoning chains to pixel-level grounding via SAM3: AffectOmni summarizes focus entities from the reasoning, converts them into segmentation instructions, and visualizes the exact regions to enable automatic consistency checks and human inspection.
Category
n
Δ (pp)
95% CI (pp)
p
Emotion ( ←Rppl )
133
+4.66∗∗
[+1.2,+8.3]
0.008
How ( ←Rppl )
632
+3.64∗∗
[+1.3,+5.9]
0.002
Why
698
+0.86
[−1.4,+3.2]
0.484
What
480
+1.46
[−1.2,+4.2]
0.317
Other
507
+0.39
[−1.8,+2.6]
0.779
Deception
200
−4.00
[−9.0,+1.0]
1.000
TABLE VI : One-sided paired bootstrap significance test (10,000 resamples) on IntentBench ( n=2,689 ), testing whether AffectOmni > HumanOmniV2 per category. Δ denotes the mean accuracy difference (AffectOmni − HumanOmniV2). Shaded rows are categories directly targeted by Rppl . ∗∗p<0.01 ; ∗p<0.05 .
Method
Size
Overall Acc. (%)
LLaVA-Video [ 67 ]
7B
83.20
PLLaVA [ 54 ]
7B
81.00
Magma [ 56 ]
8B
80.90
AffectOmni (Ours)
7B
80.52
HumanOmniV2 [ 58 ]
7B
79.78
LLaVA-OneVision [ 27 ]
7B
79.40
TABLE VII : Results on NExT-QA multiple-choice test set. AffectOmni surpasses HumanOmniV2 without domain-specific fine-tuning, confirming that affective RL training does not cause catastrophic forgetting of general video understanding.
Method
Causal
Temporal
Descriptive
AffectOmni
79.28
79.44
86.48
HumanOmniV2
80.50
76.50
83.77
TABLE VIII : Fine-grained NExT-QA results by question type. AffectOmni shows gains over HumanOmniV2 on Temporal and Descriptive subsets, consistent with the transferable reasoning capabilities trained by People-Focus and Temporal-Order rewards.
Evidence Type
Count
Rate
Visual Evidence
84
84%
Temporal Evidence
72
72%
Behavioral Evidence
89
89%
≥ 2 Types
93
93%
TABLE IX: Occurrence rates of three types of structured evidence (Visual/Temporal/Behavioral) and coverage rate of ≥ 2 evidence types from 100 randomly sampled think outputs.
Type
Samples
Visual
Temporal
Behavioral
Other
28
75%
75%
89%
Why
27
81%
70%
81%
How
19
95%
74%
89%
What
14
86%
64%
93%
Deception
8
88%
62%
100%
Emotion
4
100%
100%
100%
TABLE X: Evidence occurrence rates grouped by question type.
Indicator
Count
Rate
Mentions Person
98
98%
Has Appearance (color/clothing)
39
39%
Has Visual Feature (expression/posture)
91
91%
Has Locatable Action
94
94%
Basic Grounding
98
98%
High-Quality Grounding
86
86%
TABLE XI: Occurrence rates of grounding-relevant elements and two levels of grounding criteria from 100 randomly sampled reasoning chains.
Type
Samples
Basic
High-Quality
Other
28
96%
82%
Why
27
100%
85%
How
19
100%
89%
What
14
93%
86%
Deception
8
100%
88%
Emotion
4
100%
100%
TABLE XII: Grounding attainment rates grouped by question type.
Seg. Relevant
Seg. Irrelevant
Total
Answer Correct
55
12
67
Answer Wrong
11
22
33
Conditional Acc.
83.3%
35.3%
67%
TABLE XIII : Annotators judge, based only on SAM3 segmentation, whether it is related to the question target, and we report the contingency table between this relevance judgment and answer correctness, together with conditional accuracy (n=100).
While multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have demonstrated exceptional capabilities in objective understanding tasks, their performance in affective reasoning still falls significantly short of human standards. We attribute it to a central capability gap: MLLMs are difficult to reliably distinguish semantically proximal emotions based on fine-grained visual evidence, which could be decoupled as two limitations: 1) Insufficient Attribution. The global reasoning paradigm of conventional MLLMs severely dilutes fine-grained emotion cues, where subtle emotional states are usually implicitly encoded, thereby generating emotional misjudgments in complex scenarios. 2) Insufficient Discrimination. Existing methods could only identify regions generally associated with emotions, which fails to distinguish discriminative regions between semantically similar emotions, leading to ambiguous emotion judgements. To overcome these limitations, we present a training-free inference-time optimization framework, named Decoding Affective Nuances (DAN). Specifically, we propose a Hierarchical Emotional Reasoning Chain (HERC) that enhances the insufficient attribution by harmonizing fine-grained scene/object-level cues and performing a soft-gated reasoning. Furthermore, to discriminate between semantically proximal emotions, we design a Contrastive Discriminative Visual Pruning (CDVP), which isolates discriminative visual tokens to reason the final emotion category by computing the absolute discrepancy between the attention distributions of similar emotions. Performances on several benchmarks demonstrate that DAN significantly improves discrimination for affective nuances without consuming additional training resources, especially achieving +10.47% improvements with Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct on WebEmo25 dataset that contains 25 fine-grained emotion categories.
Cheng Ye, Weidong Chen, Zhaobo Qi +2
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei · Harbin Institute of Technology, Weihai
Reinforcement learning for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) is often hindered by severe reward sparsity in complex reasoning tasks. This challenge is particularly pronounced in human-centered scenarios involving states, emotions, intentions, and behaviors, where heterogeneous multimodal signals and subjective human factors make high-quality chain-of-thought (CoT) annotations expensive and difficult to obtain. Although many multimodal datasets provide expert-annotated ground-truth labels, directly using these labels for supervised fine-tuning may encourage shortcut learning in multimodal perception and provides limited transparency for safety-critical human--AI interaction. To address these limitations, we propose OmniOPSD, a Rationale-Privileged On-Policy Self-Distillation framework that uses frontier-generated rationales as teacher-side privileged evidence rather than student imitation targets. OmniOPSD uses frontier-generated evidence-aware rationales only as training-time privileged evidence context for a local teacher. The student samples its own rollout from the original multimodal input, while the rationale-privileged teacher scores the same tokens and provides dense token-level supervision. Thus, the student learns on its own trajectory distribution without directly imitating frontier-model completions, and inference requires no labels, rationales, CoT annotations, or closed-source model access. Experiments on MER-UniBench show that OmniOPSD achieves state-of-the-art performance with an average score of 84.19, and ablations further support the value of rationale-privileged teacher guidance.
Zebang Cheng, Shuimu Chen, Boxue Yang +7
Shenzhen University · Guangdong Laboratory of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Economy (SZ) · Tsinghua University +6
We find that current emotion-oriented Omni-MLLMs still lack reliable omni-modal perception: they (i) underutilize multimodal cues in their reasoning trajectories and (ii) exhibit unfaithful behavior, often hallucinating modality-specific statements from other modalities. Building on these insights, we propose OPPO (Omni-Perception Policy Optimization), a reinforcement learning framework that explicitly optimizes multimodal perception. First, an Omni-Perception Reward decomposes ground-truth reasoning into fine-grained visual, acoustic, and emotion cues and rewards trajectories that semantically recover these cues. Second, an Omni-Perception Loss compares the policy under full and unimodally masked inputs, applying a KL penalty only to modality-specific evidence tokens to suppress cross-modal hallucination. We further introduce MEP-Bench, a diagnostic benchmark that quantifies utilization and faithfulness. Experiments show that OPPO achieves state-of-the-art performance on MER-UniBench and MME-Emotion, while substantially improving utilization and faithfulness scores on MEP-Bench, highlighting the importance of sufficient and faithful omni perception for multimodal emotion reasoning.
Zhiyuan Han, Beier Zhu, Wenwen Tong +6
University of Science and Technology of China · SenseTime · Institute of Artificial Intelligence, Hefei Comprehensive National Science Center +1