PsycheMME: A Psychology-Informed Benchmark for Social Understanding and Interaction in Videos
Organizations: Zhejiang University, APRIL Lab · China University of Geosciences
Abstract
Understanding human needs and selecting responses require distinct judgments that aggregate accuracy can obscure. We introduce PsycheMME, a video benchmark informed by psychology, with eight capabilities spanning grounding, states, needs, interaction decisions, memory, and risk. Drawing on Social Information Processing and the Perception-Action Cycle, this organization separates human understanding from response selection. We construct 1,000 questions from 630 episodes through independent answering with proposed references withheld and expert review. Our Reasoning-Verified protocol weights answer credit by the support and logical consistency of explicit rationales against annotated cues. Across 17 models, Timing has the lowest Verified scores and credit retention, with weaker support judgments for correct Timing answers. Models with similar Need scores still differ in answer completeness on open questions. Input controls and SFT/GRPO examine context dependence and adaptation. Evaluating answers alongside rationales locates where models fail across understanding, response selection, and justification.
Figures & tables
| Benchmark | Videos/Clips | Prompt | Ego | G | W | N | T | S | A | M | R |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HumanVideo-MME [ 7 ] | 1,200 | 8,700 | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Social Genome [ 40 ] | 272 | 1,486 | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Human Behavior Atlas [ 45 ] | 35,046 | 101,964 | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | |
| HumanSense [ 50 ] | - | 3,882 | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ||
| SIV-Bench [ 34 ] | 2,792 | 5,455 | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| R 3 -Bench [ 43 ] | 312 | 4,840+316 | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Model | Overall | Understanding | Interaction | Contextual | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw | Ver. | G | W | N | T | S | A | M | R | |
| Proprietary Models | ||||||||||
| Gemini 3.6 Flash [ 26 ] | 85.68 | 80.03 | 91.76 | 79.68 | 69.97 | 47.81 | 79.32 | 89.58 | 90.92 | 91.21 |
| Claude Opus 5 [ 3 ] | 82.34 | 76.71 | 89.31 | 77.80 | 69.10 | 40.70 | 79.18 | 86.24 | 86.56 | 84.82 |
| GPT-5.6 Sol [ 46 ] | 81.09 | 75.98 | 92.13 | 78.75 | 67.28 | 32.99 | 74.86 | 84.25 | 91.11 | 86.47 |
| Qwen3.8-Max [ 53 ] | 81.48 | 75.59 | 90.87 | 77.61 | 69.17 | 39.33 | 72.84 | 82.46 | 84.48 | 87.94 |
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Source | Episodes | Questions | Choice | Open |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CASTLE | 61 | 87 | 84 | 3 |
| EasyCom | 40 | 70 | 66 | 4 |
| Ego4D | 142 | 230 | 196 | 34 |
| EgoCom | 38 | 60 | 48 | 12 |
| IndEgo | 8 | 8 | 8 | 0 |
| MERCI+ | 67 | 91 | 66 | 25 |
| Agent | Inputs | Assessment | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Question Agent | Video, public context, target capability | Observed cues support the question and reference | Candidate question, answer, options, and supporting cues |
| Answer Agent | Video, question, options, public context | Answerability without the proposed reference or its supporting cues | Independent answer or identified ambiguity |
| Critic Agent | Proposed and independent answers, source cues | Cue support, logical coherence, construct alignment | Quality assessment and refinement suggestions |
| Capability | Required cues | Review criterion |
|---|---|---|
| G | A uniquely grounded speaker, addressee, person, or interpersonal relation | Corroborate the target person’s visible identity using speech, behavior, and interaction relations. |
| W | Observable cues supporting a psychological state or its stated cause | Distinguish situated psychological interpretation from clinical diagnosis; check the support for each stated cause. |
| N | An explicit request, refusal, or contextual basis for the inferred support need | Check whether the available cues indicate willingness to receive the proposed support. |
| T | Turn structure, ongoing activity, urgency, or a supported opportunity to respond | Assess the intervention opportunity against turn structure, current activity, and urgency. |
| S | Response content and tone suitable for the supported state, need, and context | Assess the fit of content, strategy, and tone to the person’s state, need, and context. |
| A | A feasible physical or nonverbal response consistent with the interaction | Distinguish recognition of observed behavior from selection of an appropriate next action. |
| Field / task | Required representation |
|---|---|
| answer : choice | Option ID for one required option, e.g., "A" ; array for several, e.g., ["A", "C"] |
| answer : open | Concise answer in natural language |
| G/W/N/T/S/A/M/R | Short relevant judgment or JSON null |
| Support / logic label | Interpretation of Evidence Support | Interpretation of Logical Integrity | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strong / fully coherent | Relevant claims are well supported by frozen cue annotations. | Active judgments jointly support the answer without contradiction. | 1.2 |
| Normal / acceptable | Support is adequate, with limited omissions or specificity. | The explanation is consistent and adequate, with minor gaps. | 1.0 |
| Weak / weak | A material inference or supporting link lacks adequate support from observed cues. | A material reasoning link is incomplete or inadequately justified. | 0.8 |
| Contradicted / contradictory | A material claim conflicts with the supplied cues. | Active judgments contradict one another or the final answer. | 0.5 |
| Insufficient / unevaluable | No evaluable support is available for the explicit rationale. | No evaluable logical explanation is present. | 0.0 |
| Case | Verified (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full support | 1 | 1 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 100.00 |
| Normal / acceptable | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 69.44 |
| Weak support | 1 | 1 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 66.67 |
| Contradictory logic | 1 | 1 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 41.67 |
| Missing rationale | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| Incorrect answer | 0 | 1 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 0.00 |
| Model | Overall | Understanding | Interaction | Contextual | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw | Ver. | G | W | N | T | S | A | M | R | |
| Base (Qwen3.5-4B) | 47.68 | 37.71 | 63.98 | 49.38 | 47.94 | 40.28 | 30.93 | 53.19 | 40.98 | 54.79 |
| SFT (step 458) | 72.58 | 52.13 | 91.94 | 79.69 | 61.86 | 31.94 | 65.98 | 85.11 | 81.97 | 82.19 |
| GRPO (step 32) | 73.19 | 52.62 | 92.47 | 80.00 | 62.89 | 34.72 | 67.53 | 85.11 | 81.97 | 80.82 |
Video-Language Model Evaluation
Video-language model evaluation measures whether multimodal systems understand, ground, and reliably use visual and audio evidence over time.
See all 103 papers