Text-to-video (T2V) models are increasingly used to generate videos with targeted emotional expressions, yet existing evaluation methods mainly rely on holistic video-text alignment and provide limited insight into whether failures arise from target-emotion expression, intensity control, or specific affective cues. We introduce EmoTrace-Bench, a fine-grained diagnostic benchmark that controls emotion intensity and selected affective cues in prompts and evaluates generated videos at multiple levels. EmoTrace-Bench contains 448 controlled prompts covering eight emotions, two intensity levels, and diverse cue conditions. Using 12 T2V models, we generate 5,376 videos and evaluate target-emotion presence, perceived intensity, and ten audiovisual dimensions of emotional expression with an automated evaluator calibrated and validated against human annotations on a subset of the data. Results reveal substantial differences across models and prompt designs. Prompts that explicitly describe a character's emotional reaction are followed more reliably than prompts that describe only events or scenes, whereas adding more affective cues or using more explicit cinematic audiovisual language does not consistently improve emotional generation. These results illustrate how aggregate alignment scores may overlook localized differences in target-emotion expression, intensity control, and cue realization. EmoTrace-Bench provides a traceable and interpretable framework for diagnosing emotional video generation without modifying existing generation pipelines, and we release the prompts and the automated evaluation rules.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: EmoTrace-Bench at a glance. Left: the three-level evaluation taxonomy—whether the target emotion is expressed, whether its perceived intensity is weak or strong, and which of ten expression channels (character, visual form, audio, context, temporal) provide the evidence. Top right: correct content does not guarantee emotional expression; a model must infer the emotion from context and reaction and realize the requested intensity, and existing benchmarks do not diagnose where this fails. Bottom right: the four capability facets examined in Section 4—breadth across emotions and prompt conditions, depth of intensity control and cue support, and explicit versus implicit cue expression.
Affective target
Controlled input
Diagnostic output
Human validation
Benchmark
EC
EI
AC
CI
IP
GF
CL
EL
DS
PL
SV
MR
EmoVid ( Qiu et al., 2026 )
∙
∘
⊙
∘
∘
⊙
∘
∙
∙
∘
⊙
∙
HVEval ( Wu et al., 2025 )
⊙
∘
⊙
∘
∘
⊙
∘
⊙
∙
∘
⊙
∙
HUG-VIS ( Ma et al., 2026 )
∙
∘
∘
∘
∘
⊙
∘
∙
∙
∘
⊙
∙
Stable Cinemetrics ( Chatterjee et al., 2025 )
∘
∘
⊙
⊙
∘
∙
⊙
∘
∙
∘
⊙
⊙
FilmBench ( Wang et al., 2026b )
⊙
∘
⊙
∘
∘
⊙
∘
⊙
∙
∘
⊙
∙
Table 1: Capability coverage of representative video-generation benchmarks. Filled, dotted, and open circles denote full, partial or domain-restricted, and absent support, respectively.
Figure 2: Overview of the EmoTrace-Bench pipeline. Prompts from the controlled suite (top) are sent unchanged to every model; the middle row shows matched weak/strong generations for one fear prompt pair across models. All videos are scored by a single automated evaluator that is frozen after calibration against human labels (left) and applied through the two-stage affective evaluation (bottom).
Figure 3: Emotion generation across 12 T2V models. (a) Overall performance: target-emotion accuracy (Emotion), joint emotion-and-intensity accuracy (Emotion + intensity; E+I in the text), Visual 9D and Full 10D cue support, and bootstrap group; models within a group are not ordered. (b) Target-emotion accuracy for each of the eight emotions. Scores are obtained from one blinded automated evaluation per video.
Figure 4: Overall (left) and implicit (right) cue-expression profiles of 12 T2V models. Values are relative to the best model in each channel.
Reference
Target emotion
Conditional intensity
Joint three-way
Ten dimensions
Development, first-pass human reference
88.1 / .67
79.1 / .58
73.4 / .59
83.0 / .63
Test, first-pass human reference
84.7 / .59
88.3 / .76
77.0 / .65
80.5 / .59
Development, reviewed human reference
89.9 / .72
93.0 / .86
84.8 / .76
85.1 / .67
Test, reviewed human reference
90.2 / .76
92.0 / .84
87.1 / .81
83.0 / .64
Table 2: Agreement between the automated evaluator and the human reference.
Appendix figures & tables23 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Public model designation
Access
Videos
Native audio
Seedance-2.5
hosted
448
yes
Veo-3.1
hosted
448
yes
Wan-3.0
hosted
448
yes
HappyHorse-1.1
hosted
448
yes
MiniMax-H3-Max (fal)
hosted
448
yes
Kling-3.0 †
hosted
448
yes
Appendix
Table A.1: Systems included in the 5,376-video evaluation. Each model generates one video for each of the 448 prompts. “Access” distinguishes systems reached through a hosted interface from open-weight systems run locally; “Native audio” indicates whether the generated output contains a usable model-produced audio track.
Field
Protocol
Prompt submission
Identical frozen English prompt for all 12 models
Samples per prompt
One retained generation per model–prompt pair; no best-of- n selection
Duration
Approximately five seconds (provider-native duration closest to the target), continuous single-shot target; the full clip is evaluated and duration does not enter any score
Resolution
Provider-recommended native output; not forcibly matched across models
Frame rate
Provider-native output; automated evaluation samples at 8 fps
Audio
Original model-produced track retained; sound excluded when no usable native track exists
Appendix
Table A.2: Generation controls and cross-model treatment. “Native” means that a property is preserved from the provider output rather than normalized by post-processing.
Metric
Seed A
Seed B
Seed C
Range
SD
Target emotion (%)
75.45
72.54
76.12
3.57
1.55
Emotion + target intensity (%)
47.77
45.54
49.33
3.79
1.56
Visual 9D macro (%)
72.90
72.92
72.74
0.18
0.08
Full 10D macro (%)
69.72
70.03
69.72
0.31
0.15
Appendix
Table A.3: Kling-3.0 score variation across seed settings. All batches use the same 448 prompts and exposed generation configuration; only the generation seed is changed. Visual 9D and Full 10D are emotion-conditioned macro averages on each batch’s own emotion-matched subset. SD is the descriptive standard deviation over the three settings (divisor 3) and does not estimate variance over unseen seeds.
Comparison
Metric
Δ
95% CI
McNemar p
A → B
Target emotion
−2.90
[−6.92,+1.12]
.203
Emotion + target intensity
−2.23
[−6.92,+2.23]
.373
Visual 9D macro
+0.02
[−2.39,+2.53]
–
Full 10D macro
+0.31
[−2.11,+2.68]
–
A → C
Target emotion
+0.67
[−3.12,+4.46]
.818
Emotion + target intensity
+1.56
[−2.90,+6.25]
.558
Appendix
Table A.4: Prompt-matched pairwise differences between seed batches. Δ is the right-hand seed minus the left-hand seed in percentage points; intervals are 95% percentile intervals from 5,000 paired prompt bootstrap replicates; p is from the two-sided exact McNemar test, applicable to the two binary metrics only.
Comparison
Target emotion
Three-level intensity
Ten dimensions
A vs. B
80.1 / .484
70.1 / .527
81.9 / .615
A vs. C
83.3 / .544
70.5 / .532
82.1 / .619
B vs. C
83.9 / .580
72.1 / .560
82.8 / .634
Appendix
Table A.5: Same-prompt agreement between seed batches. Values are agreement (%) / Cohen’s κ between different generated videos for the same prompt, not repeated evaluations of one video.
Template
Family
Complexity
Segments written
∣Exp∣
∣atoms∣
Words
Explicit channels
Implicit channels
EMO
emotion-label baseline
atomic
emotion label
0
1
15
–
C1, C2, V1–V4, X1, X2, T1
FACE
single channel
atomic
face
1
1
26.5
C1
C2, V1–V4, T1
BODY
single channel
atomic
body
1
1
25.5
C2
C1, V1–V4, T1
SCENE
single channel
atomic
scene appraisal
1
1
24.5
X1
C1, C2, V1–V4, T1
EVENT
single channel
atomic
event appraisal
1
1
24.5
X2
C1, C2, V1–V4, T1
FACE_BODY
paired addition
composed
face + body
2
2
42.5
C1, C2
V1–V4, T1
Appendix
Table B.1: The 14 prompt templates. Every template contributes 32 prompts: eight emotions, two scenes, and two intensity levels. “Words” is the median prompt length. Visual-form segments jointly specify V1–V4; these four channels are not independently manipulated. A dash means that no channel is explicit.
Template
C1
C2
V1
V2
V3
V4
X1
X2
T1
EMO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FACE
E
I
I
I
I
I
–
–
I
BODY
I
E
I
I
I
I
–
–
I
SCENE
I
I
I
I
I
I
E
–
I
EVENT
I
I
I
I
I
I
–
E
I
FACE_BODY
E
E
I
I
I
I
–
–
I
Appendix
Table B.2: Prompt-side cue roles for all templates. E = explicitly written; I = implicit (not written but observed); – = outside the intended scope of that template. A1 is omitted because sound is scoring-only.
Pair
Operation
Intended change
Tested
1
SCENE → SCENE_REACT
add
add facial and bodily reaction to the same scene appraisal
yes
2
EVENT → EVENT_REACT
add
add facial and bodily reaction to the same event appraisal
yes
3
FACE → FACE_BODY
add
add a body segment to the same facial description
yes
4
BODY → FACE_BODY
add
add a facial segment to the same body description
yes
5
CONTEXT_MOOD → CONTEXT_HARD
replace
experiential atmosphere → explicit cinematic form, character present
yes
6
EMPTY_MOOD → EMPTY_HARD
replace
experiential atmosphere → explicit cinematic form, empty scene
yes
Appendix
Table B.3: Seven controlled template pairs. Text not named in the “Intended change” column is preserved within the pair. “Tested” indicates membership in the pre-specified McNemar/Holm family.
Figure B.1: Six prompt conditions for one fear scene, shown as strong–weak pairs with the intensity-bearing span highlighted. Rows 1–6 correspond to the EMO, FACE, SCENE, SCENE_REACT, CONTEXT_MOOD, and CONTEXT_HARD templates (Table B.1 ); rows 3–4 and rows 5–6 are contrasts 1 and 5 in Table B.3 .
Figure B.2: Frame sequences from three models for the same strong-intensity prompt within each of three emotions. Although every video depicts the requested scene and character, the realized expression ranges from clearly strong to nearly neutral, so emotion presence and intensity are scored separately.
Check
Result
Total structured prompt records
448
Strong / weak members
224 / 224
Unique prompt texts
448 / 448
Unique SHA-256 prompt hashes
448 / 448
Intensity pairs passing the pairing contract
224 / 224
Literal reuse of shared segments
372 / 384
Appendix
Table B.4: Structural audit of the 448-prompt set. Structural checks verify the frozen construction contract.
Group
ID
Channel
Direct object of judgment
Channel-specific prerequisite
Character performance
C1
Facial expression
Joint configuration of eyes, brows, mouth, cheeks, and jaw
An identifiable, readable face
C2
Bodily behavior
Posture, gesture, movement direction and energy, or meaningful stillness
An identifiable, readable body
Visual form
V1
Lighting
Brightness, contrast, shadow, direction, hardness, and their change over time
Visual content is readable
V2
Color
Palette, warm–cool balance, saturation, color contrast, and change
Chromatic information is present
V3
Composition
Placement, negative space, visual weight, balance, occlusion, and depth
Spatial configuration is visible
V4
Visual dynamics
Camera motion, recomposition, stability, cuts, and meaningful holds
Sufficient temporal extent
Appendix
Table C.1: The ten affective cue channels, grouped by source, with their operational definitions. Each channel receives a binary judgment. A positive label requires observable evidence that specifically supports the target emotion, subject to the shared and channel-specific rules below.
Metric
Denominator
Treatment of missing or inapplicable values
Emotion
all valid videos ( 448 per model)
exclude and separately count unscorable process failures
E+I
all valid videos ( 448 per model)
emotion failure receives no joint credit; intensity is not forced
Cue channel d
videos with M=1
exclude a channel only when no valid object exists, such as A1 without native audio
Visual 9D
mean of nine visual/context/temporal channel rates
always reported for a valid model run
Full 10D
mean of ten channel rates
not reported for silent models
Paired control
all 224 strong–weak pairs
a pair with either emotion absent is a failed pair, not an intensity reversal
Appendix
Table C.2: Exact metric denominators.
Reference
Target emotion
Intensity
Ten dimensions
Development: pairwise agreement (%)
85.7
77.9
80.8
Development: Fleiss’ κ
.65
.50
.60
Reviewed reference vs. trained majority (%)
90.4
90.9
94.2
Test: two-annotator agreement (%)
81.7
75.5
80.2
Test: Cohen’s κ
.54
.50
.58
Appendix
Table D.1: Agreement among human judgments. Development-set values summarize five trained annotators. Test-set agreement is computed only between the two full-coverage annotators; the third, senior annotator serves only as a reviewer.
Item
Development
Test
First-pass agreed fields
8,899
1,780
First-pass disputed fields
317
524
Tie-broken by trained annotators
206
–
Excluded from first-pass reference (no consensus)
111
524
Fields changed at second review
308
297
Second-review annotators
same two senior annotators
a third, senior annotator
Appendix
Table D.2: First-pass consensus and second-review statistics. Counts refer to fields.
Reference
Target emotion
Conditional intensity
Joint three-way
Ten dimensions
Development, first-pass human reference
88.1±0.7 / .670±.021
79.1±0.1 / .578±.003 (637)
73.4±0.6 / .588±.009
83.0±0.2 / .625±.003 (7,424)
Test, first-pass human reference
84.7 / .589 (183)
88.3 / .764 (94)
77.0 / .652
80.5 / .585 (1,489)
Development, reviewed human reference
89.9±0.9 / .716±.024
93.0±1.3 / .858±.026 (641)
84.8±1.8 / .764±.028
85.1±0.3 / .669±.007 (7,424)
Test, reviewed human reference
90.2 / .762 (224)
92.0 / .840 (125)
87.1 / .806
83.0 / .643 (1,639)
Appendix
Table D.3: Complete agreement results between the automated evaluator and the human reference. Values are agreement (%) / Cohen’s κ ; development-set values are mean ± standard deviation over three independent runs (the 12-model run plus two stability runs); test-set values are from the single run. Parentheses give valid counts.
Dimension
Development
Test
Facial expression
87.9 / .74 / 768 / 64 → 63
84.6 / .69 / 156 / 58 → 52
Bodily behavior
85.1 / .70 / 768 / 53 → 59
84.1 / .68 / 157 / 51 → 52
Lighting
82.4 / .55 / 896 / 74 → 72
77.7 / .50 / 224 / 70 → 63
Color
85.3 / .64 / 896 / 71 → 71
83.5 / .64 / 224 / 67 → 63
Composition
84.9 / .55 / 896 / 80 → 77
79.3 / .30 / 174 / 93 → 74
Visual dynamics
84.0 / .64 / 896 / 64 → 69
86.0 / .72 / 186 / 49 → 48
Appendix
Table D.4: Per-dimension agreement against the reviewed human reference. Each cell reports agreement (%), Cohen’s κ , valid count, and the human-to-automated pass rates; run averaging follows Table D.3 .
Reference / task
Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash
Gemini 3.1 Pro
First-pass: target emotion
81.4 / .509
83.6 / .574
First-pass: joint three-way
70.3 / .542
73.6 / .602
First-pass: conditional intensity
84.3 / .679
82.8 / .653
First-pass: ten dimensions
83.1 / .627
79.9 / .575
Reviewed: target emotion
84.4 / .627
88.4 / .721
Reviewed: joint three-way
74.2 / .610
80.4 / .705
Appendix
Table D.5: Test-set agreement of two evaluator backbones with the human reference. Values are agreement (%) / Cohen’s κ ; both evaluators run at 5 fps under the frozen protocol.
Pair
Emotion
Joint three-way
Ten dimensions
Visual 9D
Sound
Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash vs. Gemini (5 fps)
.640
.622
.678
.676
.678
Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash vs. Gemini (8 fps)
.679
.630
.680
.682
.660
Gemini 8 fps vs. 5 fps
.875
.844
.861
–
.893
Appendix
Table D.6: Direct agreement between evaluator runs on the same test-set videos. Values are Cohen’s κ . The last row compares the 8 fps setting used in the main results with the 5 fps control.
Character
Visual form
Audio
Context
Temporal
Model
N
C1
C2
V1
V2
V3
V4
A1
X1
X2
T1
Seedance-2.5
390
86.4
70.1
85.1
84.9
89.7
93.6
82.6
89.8
58.6
93.2
Veo-3.1
380
83.6
74.1
76.8
79.0
87.4
44.5
61.0
91.7
62.3
91.4
Wan-3.0
358
82.2
68.1
76.5
79.6
85.8
33.8
78.5
91.6
46.4
87.8
HappyHorse-1.1
357
80.7
73.1
72.8
76.2
82.6
86.8
75.3
88.8
51.9
85.9
MiniMax-H3-Max (fal)
333
81.4
66.4
74.2
80.8
85.0
33.0
52.2
89.0
49.0
88.9
Appendix
Table E.1: Cue-level expression profiles of 12 T2V models. Each score is the percentage of target-emotion-successful videos in which the corresponding channel supports the target emotion. N is the number of such videos for each model.
Character
Visual form
Audio
Context
Temporal
Model
C1
C2
V1
V2
V3
V4
A1 ¶
X1 §
X2 §
T1 ¶
Implicit 9D
Seedance-2.5
71.5
54.9
81.2
81.6
88.1
94.6
82.6
90.3
29.0
93.2
76.1
Veo-3.1
67.4
57.6
71.0
73.0
85.3
36.9
61.0
93.5
35.5
91.4
68.0
Wan-3.0
63.5
48.5
70.3
74.2
81.8
25.0
78.5
90.0
6.7
87.8
60.9
HappyHorse-1.1
70.2
61.1
66.8
70.2
79.0
86.5
75.3
83.3
36.7
85.9
71.1
MiniMax-H3-Max (fal)
61.3
42.5
68.3
74.9
81.5
23.8
52.2
78.6
17.9
88.9
59.7
Appendix
Table E.2: Implicit cue-expression profiles of 12 T2V models. Each score is the percentage of target-emotion-successful videos, among those whose prompt does not explicitly specify the channel, in which that channel supports the target emotion. Implicit 9D is the mean over the nine visual, contextual, and temporal channels.
Model
Correctly ordered
Collapsed
Reversed
Not comparable
Seedance-2.5
27.7
47.3
5.8
19.2
Veo-3.1
28.6
48.2
1.3
21.9
Wan-3.0
26.8
43.8
0.9
28.6
HappyHorse-1.1
29.5
36.6
3.1
30.8
MiniMax-H3-Max (fal)
23.2
36.6
1.3
38.8
Kling-3.0
19.6
39.7
1.3
39.3
Appendix
Table E.3: Outcomes of the 224 strong–weak prompt pairs per model. All values are percentages of pairs and sum to 100 within a row.
Template
Seedance-2.5
Veo-3.1
Wan-3.0
HappyHorse-1.1
MiniMax-H3-Max (fal)
Kling-3.0
MiniMax-H3
LTX-2.5
Wan-2.2
HunyuanVideo-1.5
Kandinsky-5.0-T2V-Pro
LongCat-Video-13.6B
Mean
Sig.
Emotion-label baseline
EMO
66
72
81
75
72
62
62
69
62
50
44
25
62
Character performance
FACE
69
81
50
62
69
66
56
53
47
53
34
41
57
BODY
56
41
47
53
38
47
25
50
28
28
38
25
40
FACE_BODY
69
69
66
81
62
56
66
78
50
62
66
41
64
Appendix
Table E.4: Joint emotion-and-intensity accuracy (%) by prompt template and model. Regular rows report E+I over the 32 videos of each template. Italic Δ rows report the paired difference (in percentage points) of the row immediately above from the named template, for the six pre-specified contrasts; ∗ denotes p<0.05 under an exact paired McNemar test after model-wise Holm correction over the six contrasts. “Mean” is the 12-model mean; “Sig.” counts models with a significant difference.
Recent video generation models can produce highly realistic videos from natural language instructions, with visual quality approaching cinematic standards. Existing evaluation benchmarks, however, predominantly assess visual quality, aesthetic appeal and physical plausibility, while paying limited attention to text, an essential medium for conveying information in everyday scenes. A generated video may appear visually compelling and feature lifelike subjects, yet still render the text within the scene incorrectly. To address this overlooked dimension, we introduce VTR-Bench, a systematic benchmark for evaluating the Visual Text Rendering capabilities of video generation models. VTR-Bench situates text within concrete application scenarios, such as advertisements and scientific videos, with 300 carefully constructed prompts spanning five scenario categories. We develop an automated evaluation pipeline with human alignments that separately assesses text fidelity through carrier-specific transcription and scene and motion requirements through a prompt-specific chain of query. Beyond evaluation, we introduce a Keyframe-Guided Agentic Framework in which a Director agent coordinates image and video generation with visual evaluation, guiding iterative refinement and candidate selection through visual feedback. Experiments on 11 state-of-the-art models reveal widespread difficulties in accurately rendering scene text, with the best-performing model recording an overall word error rate (WER) of 0.250. We further analyze text rendering failures to characterize the challenges faced by current video generation models. These findings highlight visual text rendering as a key challenge for video generation and demonstrate a practical path toward improvement. Code is available at https://github.com/hardenyu21/VTR-Bench.
Yu Huang, Jungang Li, Zhiyuan Wang +8
Department of Data Science, City University of Hong Kong · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · Westlake University +3
Rapid advances in artificial intelligence-generated content (AIGC) have significantly promoted using text-to-image (T2I) models to generate images with specific affective intentions. However, the emotional effects conveyed by generated images frequently deviate from target expectations, and it remains unclear whether multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can reliably interpret the emotion of AI-generated visual content. Existing affective benchmarks are predominantly built on natural images, while affective studies of generated images have largely focused on emotions expressed in portraits, lacking a unified benchmark for studying the emotions expressed and evoked by generated images. We therefore introduce EmoGenie, a benchmark of emotion for AI-generated images that evaluates capabilities in T2I generation and MLLM understanding across expressed and evoked emotions. It comprises 6,400 images generated by eight T2I models using 800 emotion-targeted prompts, annotated with question-answer (QA) pairs, termed EmoGenie-QA, and continuous human ratings, termed EmoGenie-Assess. EmoGenie-QA contains 90,000 closed-set questions in single-image and image-pair settings, as well as 1,057 open-ended questions for emotion description. EmoGenie-Assess benchmarks continuous affective and aesthetic prediction using 13,175 mean opinion scores (MOSs) aggregated from human ratings in terms of valence, arousal, dominance, and aesthetic quality. We further develop EmoProbe, which combines emotion question answering with response-aligned, dimension-specific regression heads for continuous score prediction. Experimental results show that EmoProbe achieves superior results on emotion-related QA tasks, while its affective and aesthetic predictions correlate better with human ratings, demonstrating its state-of-the-art capabilities of unified coarse-to-fine affective understanding for AI-generated images.
Modern video generators can synthesize convincing scenes while rendering a few characters incorrectly, omitting requested text, or changing it across frames. Measuring these failures is harder than applying OCR independently to each frame: when a scene contains multiple text targets and multiple noisy OCR regions, the evaluator must first determine which observation belongs to which intended text. We introduce TextVBench, a benchmark and evaluation framework that formulates visual-text evaluation as a multi-target, multi-instance spatiotemporal correspondence problem. TextVBench contains two complementary tracks: TextVBench-T2V measures the creation and maintenance of prompt-specified text, while TextVBench-Ref2V measures preservation of text from reference images. Both tracks use target-conditioned candidate selection rather than unconstrained VLM transcription, support one target mapping to multiple OCR regions, and separate frame-level spatial fidelity from cross-frame temporal fidelity. A length-weighted harmonic score summarizes these factors, while extra-text diagnostics expose failure modes hidden by a single OCR score. The benchmark is organized around controlled text, layout, carrier, and motion attributes so that aggregate scores can be traced back to specific capability limits. Across the evaluated model runs, MiniMax-H3 reaches a T2V TextVScore of 68.32, while the strongest Ref2V score is 56.51; attribute slices reveal a pronounced drop as the number of simultaneous reference text regions increases.
Ruiqiang Zhang, Hengyi Wang, Chang Liu +3
Anhui Province Key Laboratory of Digital Security, University of Science and Technology of China