FACES: Fine-grained Gated Semantic Alignment for Multimodal Emotional Support Conversation
Organizations: School of Computer Science and Engineering, Northeastern University, China
Abstract
In recent years, with advances in multimodal interaction technologies and the growing demand for intelligent emotional support, Multimodal Emotional Support Conversation (MESC) has emerged as an important task. However, existing systems still suffer from shallow responses and inappropriate support strategies due to weak semantic feedback, cross-dimension reward compensation, and coarse reasoning supervision. To address these challenges, we propose FACES, a fine-grained gated semantic alignment framework for MESC. Specifically, FACES integrates multi-source rewards to construct multidimensional semantic and functional alignment signals, employs a non-compensatory gated fusion mechanism to reduce cross-dimension reward offset, and leverages structured Chain-of-Thought (CoT) anchors to perform token-level credit assignment. Under a controlled response-length protocol, FACES improves the average MLLM-based evaluation score from 3.61 to 4.04 and achieves an 80.22% pairwise win rate over SOTA. Human evaluation under the same protocol yields a 75.3% preference rate. Results on three external datasets further support transferability. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/OCT-ARR/arr.
Figures & tables
| Model | B-2 | R-L | M. | F | Dist-3 | DIFF-E. |
| BlenderBot-Joint ∗ | 4.85 | 15.25 | – | 85.50 | – | – |
| BBMHR ∗ | 1.31 | 15.38 | – | 86.60 | – | – |
| SMES ∗ | 5.13 | 15.42 | – | 86.80 | – | – |
| Qwen2.5-VL ∗ | 9.77 | 20.30 | 14.05 | 86.35 | 84.01 | 0.8744 |
| SMES_Qwen2.5 ∗ | 9.24 | 19.88 | 13.16 | 85.62 | 92.61 | 0.7577 |
| FIRES (Baseline) ∗ | 10.18 | 22.76 | 19.54 | 86.26 | 98.93 | 0.7209 |
| Dataset | Judge | FACES Win | GPT-4o Win | Tie |
| MESC-FT | Qwen2.5-VL-32B | 72.0% | 16.0% | 12.0% |
| MESC-FT | GLM-4.6V-Flash | 69.8% | 17.8% | 12.4% |
| MESC-FT | Human | 76.0% | 14.0% | 10.0% |
| MELD-ESC300 | Qwen2.5-VL-32B | 66.0% | 14.0% | 20.0% |
| MELD-ESC300 | GLM-4.6V-Flash | 63.0% | 16.7% | 20.3% |
| MELD-ESC300 | Human | 72.0% | 13.3% | 14.7% |
| Dataset | Exact Agreement | Cohen’s |
| MESC-FT | 74.7% | 0.316 |
| MELD-ESC300 | 71.7% | 0.441 |
| Model | B-2 | R-L | M. | F | Dist-3 | DIFF-E. |
| w/o multi-source reward | 10.46 | 22.31 | 19.67 | 86.55 | 98.62 | 0.4189 |
| w/o non-comp. gating | 9.82 | 20.84 | 20.02 | 86.79 | 99.18 | 0.4057 |
| w/o fine-grained credit | 8.56 | 18.37 | 18.59 | 86.02 | 98.95 | 0.4902 |
| Ours (Full) | 9.68 | 21.09 | 20.62 | 87.14 | 99.63 | 0.3643 |
| Model | B-2 | R-L | M. | F | Dist-3 | DIFF-E. |
| FIRES (Baseline) | 6.32 | 17.39 | 11.43 | 85.39 | 90.72 | 0.8192 |
| Ours (Full) | 5.59 | 16.57 | 15.16 † | 86.23 † | 94.07 † | 0.7664 † |
| Method | MLLM Avg. |
| FIRES (Baseline) | 3.61 |
| DPO | 3.62 |
| SimPO | 3.77 |
| RLOO | 3.83 |
| Ours (Full) | 4.04 |
Appendix figures & tables32 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Item | Value |
| Policy backbone | Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct |
| Reward critic | Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct |
| SFT learning rate | |
| GRPO learning rate | |
| Optimizer | AdamW |
| SFT / warm up / FACES epochs | 3 / 3 / 3 |
| Item | Value |
| Primary evaluation judge | Qwen2.5-VL-32B-Instruct-AWQ |
| Cross-family evaluation judge | GLM-4.6V-Flash |
| Local generation and Qwen judge | |
| Decoding strategy | Greedy decoding |
| Maximum new tokens | 256 |
| Temperature | 0 |
| Component | Range | Role in reward fusion |
| Format | Hard gate in the full FACES reward stage; invalid outputs receive 0 in final reward fusion. | |
| Visual | in cognitive reward | |
| Emotion | in cognitive reward | |
| Situation | in cognitive reward | |
| Strategy | Multiplicative gate | |
| Outcome | Multiplicative gate |
| Dimension | ICC(2,1) | ICC(2,3) | Human |
| Visual | – | – | 0.61 |
| Emotion | – | – | 0.68 |
| Situation | 0.74 | 0.90 | 0.66 |
| Strategy | 0.79 | 0.92 | 0.71 |
| Outcome | 0.77 | 0.91 | 0.74 |
| Gated reward vs. Overall Quality | – | – | 0.72 |
| Pipeline | Wall-time (h) | GPU-h | Relative cost |
| FIRES | 17.2 | 34.4 | |
| FACES | 42.2 | 84.4 |
| Metric | FACES | FIRES |
| Latency (s) | ||
| Output length | 184.7 tokens | 128.9 tokens |
| Throughput | 11.67 tokens/s | 9.37 tokens/s |
| Peak memory | 20.130 GiB | 20.130 GiB |
| Representative Training-time Reward Prompt |
| You are a strict evaluator for multimodal empathetic dialogue. Evaluate the candidate using the dialogue context and the corresponding reference annotations. Your judgment must consider all of the following: 1. semantic consistency with the corresponding reference part; 2. functional alignment with the intended role of the reference part; 3. appropriateness to the current dialogue context and available evidence. Score the candidate on the following three dimensions using integer scores from 1 to 5: - Situation: whether the candidate situation inference is semantically consistent with the reference situation, functionally appropriate for understanding the user’s condition, and grounded in the available evidence. - Strategy: whether the candidate support strategy is semantically aligned with the reference strategy, functionally appropriate for the user’s needs, and psychologically safe in the current context. - Outcome: whether the final response is semantically and functionally aligned with the reference response, while remaining empathetic, helpful, and contextually appropriate. Scoring rule: - 5 = great - 4 = good - 3 = acceptable - 2 = weak - 1 = poor - Penalize overly long, verbose, repetitive, or formulaic candidates with redundant or padded wording. If a candidate is substantially longer than the reference and the extra content does not improve semantic or functional alignment, lower the corresponding score(s). [CONTEXT] {context} [CANDIDATE_SITUATION] {candidate_situation} [REFERENCE_SITUATION] {reference_situation} [CANDIDATE_STRATEGY] {candidate_strategy} [REFERENCE_STRATEGY] {reference_strategy} [CANDIDATE_RESPONSE] {candidate_response} [REFERENCE_RESPONSE] {reference_response} Return JSON only in the following format: {"situation_score": 1, "strategy_score": 1, "outcome_score": 1} |
| Rule | Description |
| JSON-only output | The judge must return a valid JSON object and no extra explanation. |
| Score range | Pointwise scores are integers from 1 to 5, where 5 indicates the best quality. |
| Pairwise labels | Pairwise comparison returns one of A , B , or TIE . |
| Model anonymity | Candidate names are hidden from the judge and replaced with Candidate A and Candidate B. |
| Think section | Present in the base templates; removed in length-controlled variants. |
| Verbosity penalty | The judge is instructed to penalize overly long, repetitive, verbose, or formulaic responses when the extra content does not improve helpfulness, empathy, or contextual alignment. |
| Metric | Evaluation focus | JSON key |
| Empathy | Whether the final response expresses appropriate empathy, emotional validation, and supportive wording. | empathy_text |
| Multimodal appropriateness | Whether the response is consistent with the dialogue context and available visual evidence. | multimodal_ appropriateness |
| Context-Response Cons. | Whether the final response is consistent with the dialogue context, visual evidence, and support direction. | context_response_ consistency |
| Representative Pointwise Evaluation Prompt |
| You are an impartial evaluator for multimodal emotional support dialogue. Evaluate the candidate output according to the specified metric. Use the dialogue context, any attached visual evidence, the model’s think section if available, and the final response. If the think section is missing, it will be shown as Not provided . Your judgment must consider: 1. whether the candidate is appropriate to the user’s emotional state and dialogue context; 2. whether it is grounded in the available multimodal evidence; 3. whether it avoids unsupported, unsafe, overly verbose, repetitive, or formulaic content; 4. whether it satisfies the specific evaluation metric. [EVALUATION_METRIC] {metric_name} [METRIC_DEFINITION] {metric_definition} [CONTEXT] {context} [MODEL_THINK] {think} [CANDIDATE_RESPONSE] {response} Score the candidate from 1 to 5. Return JSON only in the following format: {json_score_format} |
| Representative Pairwise Preference Prompt |
| You are an impartial judge for multimodal emotional support dialogue. Compare Candidate A and Candidate B based on the dialogue context, any attached visual evidence, the provided think sections if available, and the final responses. The model identities are hidden. If a think section is missing, it will be shown as Not provided . Choose the better candidate according to the following criteria: 1. empathy and emotional validation; 2. contextual relevance to the user’s situation; 3. consistency with the visual evidence when available; 4. appropriateness and safety of the support strategy; 5. coherence between the think section and the final response; 6. avoidance of unnecessarily long, repetitive, verbose, or formulaic wording. If both candidates are comparable in overall quality, choose TIE . [CONTEXT] {context} [CANDIDATE A THINK] {think_a} [CANDIDATE A RESPONSE] {response_a} [CANDIDATE B THINK] {think_b} [CANDIDATE B RESPONSE] {response_b} Return JSON only in the following format: {"winner": "A"} The value of winner must be one of A , B , or TIE . |
| Dataset | View | A Win | B Win | Tie |
| MESC-FT test set | cap-30 | 426 | 11 | 13 |
| MESC-FT test set | cap-25 | 411 | 18 | 21 |
| MESC-FT test set | cap-15 | 361 | 53 | 36 |
| MELD-ESC300 | cap-30 | 287 | 7 | 6 |
| MELD-ESC300 | cap-25 | 279 | 11 | 10 |
| MELD-ESC300 | cap-15 | 186 | 29 | 85 |
| Dataset | View | Qwen2.5-VL-32B | GLM-4.6V-Flash | GLM FACES Share Excl. Ties | |
| MESC-FT | cap-15 | 450 | 80.22/11.78/8.00 | 84.9/6.0/9.1 | 93.4% ( ) |
| MESC-FT | cap-25 | 450 | 91.3/4.0/4.7 | 97.1/1.3/1.6 | – |
| MESC-FT | response-only | 450 | 100.0/0.0/0.0 | 99.6/0.2/0.2 | – |
| StickerConv | cap-15 | 300 | 63.7/18.3/18.0 | 64.3/19.4/16.3 | 76.8% ( ) |
| AvaMERG | cap-15 | 300 | 79.3/11.3/9.4 | 65.7/16.0/18.3 | 80.4% ( ) |
| Dataset | Opponent | Qwen2.5-VL-32B | GLM-4.6V-Flash | |
| MESC-FT | GPT-4o | 450 | 72.0/16.0/12.0 | 69.8/17.8/12.4 |
| MESC-FT | Claude-Haiku-4.5 | 450 | 74.0/14.4/11.6 | 71.3/16.3/12.4 |
| MESC-FT | Gemini-2.5-Flash-Lite | 450 | 72.7/15.3/12.0 | 70.2/17.1/12.7 |
| MESC-FT | GLM-4.1V-Thinking-FlashX | 450 | 76.0/12.7/11.3 | 72.9/14.7/12.4 |
| MESC-FT | Doubao-1.6-Vision | 450 | 76.7/12.0/11.3 | 74.0/13.8/12.2 |
| MESC-FT | Kimi-K2.5 | 450 | 71.6/16.2/12.2 | 69.3/18.0/12.7 |
| Dataset | FACES Win | GPT-4o Win | Tie |
| MESC-FT | 342 (76.0%) | 63 (14.0%) | 45 (10.0%) |
| MELD-ESC300 | 216 (72.0%) | 40 (13.3%) | 44 (14.7%) |
| Criterion | Guideline |
| Empathy | Whether the response recognizes and appropriately addresses the user’s emotion. |
| Multimodal appropriateness | Whether the response is consistent with the dialogue context and visual evidence. |
| Strategy suitability | Whether the support strategy fits the user’s current needs without evident risk. |
| Helpfulness | Whether the response provides practical supportive value. |
| Tie rule | Select a winner only when one response is clearly better overall. Select Tie when neither response has a clear overall advantage, including cases where the responses have different strengths and weaknesses. |
| Dataset | FACES Win | FIRES Win | Tie | |
| MESC-FT | 339 (75.3%) | 63 (14.0%) | 48 (10.7%) | 0.62 |
| Dataset | FACES Win | FIRES Win | Tie | |
| MELD-ESC300 | 211 (70.3%) | 44 (14.7%) | 45 (15.0%) | 0.58 |
| Dataset | Human F/FIRES/Tie | MLLM F/FIRES/Tie | Exact Agreement | Cohen’s | |
| MESC-FT | 450 | 339/63/48 | 361/53/36 | 74.7% (336/450) | 0.316 |
| MELD-ESC300 | 300 | 211/44/45 | 186/29/85 | 71.7% (215/300) | 0.441 |
| Model | B-2 | R-L | M. | F | Dist-3 | DIFF-E. |
| w/o format | 10.91 | 21.84 | 15.15 | 85.03 | 80.47 | 0.4293 |
| w/o visual | 8.89 | 20.59 | 19.92 | 86.51 | 98.74 | 0.4073 |
| w/o emotion | 9.44 | 19.89 | 19.37 | 86.95 | 97.92 | 0.6108 |
| w/o situation | 9.97 | 19.62 | 19.04 | 86.24 | 97.74 | 0.5918 |
| w/o strategy | 9.23 | 20.27 | 17.92 | 84.86 | 97.05 | 0.5251 |
| Ours (Full) | 9.68 | 21.09 | 20.62 | 87.14 | 99.63 | 0.3643 |
| Dimension | Targeted failure mode | Responsible span | Scoring signal |
| Visual | Incorrect or missing use of visual evidence | Visual-perception span | CLIP similarity |
| Emotion | Missing or incorrect affect recognition | Emotion-understanding span | MiniLM similarity |
| Situation | Incorrect attribution of the user’s condition | Situation-understanding span | MLLM judgment |
| Strategy | Inappropriate or unsafe support strategy | Strategy-planning span | MLLM judgment; multiplicative gate |
| Outcome | Unhelpful or misaligned final response | Final-response span | MLLM judgment; multiplicative gate |
| Aggregation | Definition | Top-Str. | Top-Out. | Critical-Fail |
| Linear | Equal-weight mean over five dimensions | 0.325 | 0.328 | 2.4% |
| Geometric mean | Geometric mean over five dimensions | 0.313 | 0.317 | 0.0% |
| Tchebycheff | Minimum over five dimensions | 0.314 | 0.311 | 0.0% |
| Gated (Ours) | mean(Visual, Emotion, Situation) Strategy Outcome | 0.343 | 0.346 | 0.0% |
| Diagnostic | Value | Linear | Gated (Ours) |
| High-risk region fraction | 65.0% | – | – |
| Mean reward in | – | 0.4465 | 0.0096 |
| Global mean reward | – | 0.4320 | 0.0349 |
| / global mean | – | 103.4% | 27.6% |
| Groups assigning maximum advantage to a critical failure | – | 14.9% | 11.1% |
| Variant | Composite | Change |
| Full model | 50.6 | – |
| Without span alignment | 45.2 |
| B-2 | R-L | M. | F | Dist-3 | DIFF-E. | MLLM Avg. | |
| 0.50 | 9.91 | 21.36 | 20.19 | 86.84 | 99.18 | 0.3984 | 3.94 |
| 0.60 | 9.74 | 21.16 | 20.48 | 87.03 | 99.42 | 0.3726 | 4.01 |
| 0.65 | 9.65 | 21.02 | 20.35 | 86.99 | 99.46 | 0.3795 | 3.98 |
| 0.70 | 9.56 | 20.84 | 20.07 | 86.83 | 99.29 | 0.4017 | 3.93 |
| Statistic | Value |
| Total samples | 300 |
| strict samples | 208 |
| relaxed samples | 92 |
| Frames per sample | 5 |
| Maximum context turns | 6 |
| Emotion: neutral | 232 |
| Subset | Emotional Need | Relevant Response | Supportive Function | Overall Validity | |
| Strict | 208 | 204 (98.1%) | 201 (96.6%) | 196 (94.2%) | 193 (92.8%) |
| Relaxed | 92 | 89 (96.7%) | 87 (94.6%) | 83 (90.2%) | 81 (88.0%) |
| Overall | 300 | 293 (97.7%) | 288 (96.0%) | 279 (93.0%) | 274 (91.3%) |
| Model | B-2 | R-L | M. | F | Dist-3 | DIFF-E. |
| GPT-4o | 1.41 | 5.73 | 13.04 | 95.35 | 54.53 | 0.5053 |
| Claude-Haiku-4.5 | 1.68 | 6.81 | 15.12 | 95.56 | 64.18 | 0.7507 |
| Gemini-2.5-Flash-Lite | 2.47 | 7.82 | 13.47 | 96.02 | 56.19 | 0.2994 |
| GLM-4.1V-Thinking-FlashX | 1.82 | 6.23 | 13.60 | 95.74 | 69.25 | 0.8126 |
| Doubao-1.6-Vision | 1.70 | 6.67 | 11.80 | 95.65 | 74.42 | 0.7057 |
| Kimi-K2.5 | 1.63 | 6.06 | 14.47 | 95.60 | 73.10 | 0.8056 |
| Dataset | View | FACES Win | FIRES Win | Tie | FACES Share Excl. Ties | Sign-test | |
| StickerConv | cap-15 | 300 | 63.7% | 18.3% | 18.0% | 77.6% (72.4–82.9%) | |
| AvaMERG | cap-15 | 300 | 79.3% | 11.3% | 9.4% | 87.5% (83.5–91.5%) | |
| StickerConv | cap-25 | 300 | 75.7% | 15.0% | 9.3% | – | – |
| AvaMERG | cap-25 | 300 | 85.0% | 8.7% | 6.3% | – | – |
| StickerConv | response-only | 300 | 82.3% | 12.0% | 5.7% | – | – |
| AvaMERG | response-only | 300 | 90.7% | 5.7% | 3.6% | – | – |
| Dataset | Model | B-2 | R-L | M. | F | Dist-3 | DIFF-E. |
| StickerConv | FACES | 20.13 | 25.46 | 34.08 | 95.99 | 68.19 | 0.4382 |
| StickerConv | FIRES | 8.55 | 22.02 | 17.94 | 96.24 | 60.51 | 0.4715 |
| AvaMERG | FACES | 5.80 | 11.64 | 19.42 | 96.11 | 74.55 | 0.5127 |
| AvaMERG | FIRES | 5.28 | 14.48 | 13.71 | 96.62 | 67.11 | 0.5406 |
Emotional Support Conversation
Emotional support conversation studies how people and AI systems provide empathetic, safe help through dialogue, including counseling, peer support, and companionship.
See all 60 papers