Real-time omnimodal assistants are expected to support people in everyday life, but audiovisual understanding alone does not establish whether they can provide timely and appropriate help. We introduce Omni-Life, a benchmark grounded in real-world user needs, deployment scenarios, and device-dependent observations. It combines controlled video synthesis for hazardous situations and edge cases with annotated real-world videos under a shared temporal protocol. The benchmark contains 400 videos: 290 requiring assistance, with 555 required intervention events, and 110 requiring silence throughout to test whether models can withhold unnecessary responses when no assistance is needed. We evaluate twelve configurations featuring mainstream real-time omnimodal models, jointly assessing event coverage, response content, timing, and unwanted output. At most 4.48% of videos requiring assistance are handled completely correctly. To examine practical deployment strategies, we study task reminders and response-latency tolerance. Reminders can improve recall by 17.12 percentage points but add approximately 4.6 unwanted responses per minute of reference silence. Increasing latency tolerance by 10s improves recall by at most 5.95 percentage points. These results show that existing models remain insufficient to deliver reliable assistance in real-life applications, calling for tailored model optimization in instruction following, timely proactive intervention, and withholding responses when assistance is not needed.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Illustration of real-life use cases for omnimodal real-time AI assistants.
Benchmark
Task focus
Video source
Proactive response
Response timing
User groups
Hazard alerts
Silence-only videos
StreamingBench ( Lin et al., 2026 )
Streaming video QA
YouTube
✓
✓
✗
✗
✗
OVO-Bench ( Niu et al., 2025 )
Online video QA
Curated + YouTube
✓
✓
✗
✗
✗
OmniMMI ( Wang et al., 2025c )
Multimodal interaction
Curated + YouTube
✓
✓
✗
✓
✗
ProactiveVideoQA ( Wang et al., 2025b )
Proactive video QA
Public datasets
✓
✓
✗
✓
✗
PhoStream ( Lu et al., 2026b )
Mobile assistance
Web + curated + recordings
✓
✓
✗
✗
✗
OmniInteract ( Lu et al., 2026c )
Spoken interaction
Recordings + curated
✓
✓
✗
✗
✗
Table 1: Comparison of benchmark tasks and evaluation protocols.
Figure 2: Five scenario domains and twelve service groups. Counts are videos; rings encode separate dimensions with schematic angles.
Figure 3: Construction pipeline of Omni-Life. Support needs guide scenario design and video sourcing through controlled synthesis or selection from public real-world sources. Temporal annotations define response windows, behavior labels, and reference content, and provide correct options for turn-based QA.
Statistic
Synthetic
Real-world
Total
Videos
277
123
400
Intervention
184
106
290
Remain Silent
93
17
110
Intervention nodes
255
300
555
Inform
139
223
362
Warn
92
57
149
Table 2: Omni-Life dataset statistics.
Model
Serving / audio input
Open-weight and Locally deployed Models
Open-weight models, locally deployed
MiniCPM-o 4.5 ( Cui et al., 2026 )
Native duplex / audio encoder
MOSS-VL ( Wang et al., 2026b )
Streaming service / SenseVoice
MOSS Preview ( Wang et al., 2026a )
Streaming service / SenseVoice
Venus-Omni ( Group, 2026 )
Native duplex / audio encoder
Table 3: Evaluated local and API-based model interfaces.
Streaming
Turn-based QA
Full Correct ↑
Intervention Recall ↑
Intervention F1 ↑
Silence Success ↑
Joint Acc. ↑
Content Acc. ↑
Timing Acc. ↑
Human Baseline
Human
53.10
62.34
64.49
91.82
60.38
82.13
66.13
Open-weight Models
MOSS Preview
0.00
1.08
1.09
2.73
11.00
45.00
29.00
AURA
0.00
12.61
1.63
0.91
24.00
65.75
31.00
Table 4: Results on Omni-Life (%; higher is better, ↑ ). Excluding the human baseline, the highest scores are marked in green and the second-best scores are marked in lighter green
Model
On-time
Late
No later reply
Others
Correct ↑
Wrong ↓
Correct ↑
Wrong ↓
Open-weight Models
MiniCPM-o 4.5
1.4
2.5
1.4
2.3
82.9
9.4
MOSS-VL
5.8
10.1
2.5
8.5
66.1
7.0
MOSS Preview
1.1
9.0
0.7
3.6
82.3
3.2
Venus-Omni
2.0
7.7
1.4
3.1
80.5
5.2
Table 5: Response outcomes for all 555 required interventions, reported separately for each model (%). The highest value in each Correct column is bold .
Model
Daily living & services ↑ 95 videos [0.3ex]
Health & caregiving ↑ 70 videos [0.3ex]
Travel & mobility ↑ 40 videos [0.3ex]
Education & work ↑ 41 videos [0.3ex]
Sports & leisure ↑ 44 videos [0.3ex]
Open-weight Models
MiniCPM-o 4.5
1.1
0.0
2.5
2.4
2.3
MOSS-VL
6.3
2.9
2.5
4.9
4.5
MOSS Preview
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Venus-Omni
3.2
1.4
2.5
2.4
0.0
Gander
3.2
1.4
0.0
4.9
0.0
Table 6: Full Correct (%, higher is better, ↑ ) across five scenarios, evaluated on videos requiring intervention. Column headers report video counts. The highest value in each column is bold .
Preventive ↑ 68 nodes
Corrective / remedial ↑ 157 nodes
Routine support ↑ 330 nodes
Open-weight Models
JoyAI
30.88
26.75
14.55
AURA
8.82
14.01
12.73
MOSS-VL
1.47
7.01
6.06
DuplexOmni (S1)
8.82
3.18
4.24
Venus-Omni
0.00
1.91
2.42
Table 7: Intervention Recall by primary service function (%, higher is better, ↑ ). Column headers give the number of required interval nodes. The highest value is bold .
Failure type
Observable behavior
Sessions (%)
F1: Intervention control
Misses required assistance, responds outside its window, or speaks when no intervention is needed.
3,223 (68.96)
F2: Situational grounding
Misidentifies a current object, attribute, location, relation, or risk state.
148 (3.17)
F3: Temporal tracking
Misreports accumulated counts, event order, historical states, or completion status.
219 (4.69)
F4: Task fulfillment
Produces relevant speech but fails to complete the requested assistance.
450 (9.63)
F5: Unusable output
Produces timestamps, empty tags, nonsemantic strings, or an incomplete essential answer.
1,064 (22.76)
Table 8: Observable failures across 4,674 completed sessions. Categories may co-occur, and a flagged session may also contain useful responses.
Figure 4: Two on-time failures in cup counting (A) and post-fall assistance in a synthetic video (B), shown with source frames, condensed references, and translated outputs. Green intervals mark reference windows; red dots mark response onsets.
Model
Completed
Control ↓
Grounding ↓
Tracking ↓
Fulfillment ↓
Unusable ↓
Failed ↓
Open-weight Models
JoyAI
400
97.50
16.50
19.75
47.75
56.50
0
AURA
400
28.00
6.25
8.25
14.75
96.25
0
MOSS-VL
400
66.25
1.50
4.00
7.50
1.75
0
DuplexOmni (S1)
370
94.86
0.81
0.81
8.65
0.54
30
Venus-Omni
400
67.50
0.50
2.75
6.75
5.50
0
Table 9: Model-wise failure prevalence (%, lower is better, ↓ ) among completed sessions. Completed and Failed give session counts out of 400 attempts and the lowest value in each column is bold .
Input strategy
MiniCPM-o 4.5
MOSS-VL
Venus-Omni
Gemini 3.8 Live
Qwen3.5 Flash
Required events handled correctly and on time (%) ↑
Original task text
1.44
5.77
1.98
3.42
4.14
Structured task text
1.44
6.31
4.32
2.52
3.60
Repeat full task every second
5.41
6.85
13.51
12.43
3.42
Repeat full task every 5 seconds
1.80
14.05
10.27
20.54
3.42
General reminder every second
2.88
3.78
6.67
11.71
3.24
Table 10: Input design and periodic task reminders. Upper: required events handled correctly and on time (%, higher is better, ↑ ). Lower: unwanted responses per minute of reference silence (lower is better, ↓ ). Within each model, the highest values in the upper section are shown in bold , and the lowest values in the lower section are shown in bold .
Figure 5: Effect of task instruction modality on Intervention Recall (top; higher is better) and unwanted responses per minute of reference silence (bottom; lower is better).
Figure 6: Intervention Recall (%) as reference-window ends are extended. Rows are ordered by the gain at δ=10 s, shown in percentage points (pp) by the right-hand bars.
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: Ten dataset examples across five scenario domains, pairing synthetic (left) and real-world (right) videos. Each case shows three source frames in temporal order, bilingual task queries, reference responses, and intervals of required assistance and silence.
User / service group
Cases
Nodes
MiniCPM-o 4.5
MOSS-VL
MOSS Preview
Venus- Omni
Gander
AURA
Adults
172
229
3.06
4.37
0.44
1.75
1.75
14.41
Infants and toddlers
26
34
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.94
Schoolchildren
36
31
0.00
3.23
0.00
3.23
3.23
9.68
Older adults
29
58
1.72
8.62
1.72
1.72
0.00
22.41
Visual impairment
27
46
0.00
2.17
4.35
0.00
0.00
2.17
Hearing impairment
13
17
0.00
11.76
0.00
5.88
0.00
17.65
Appendix
Table 11: Population and service-group Intervention Recall (%), part 1 of 2. Cases and required nodes are fixed across models; failed sessions remain in the node denominators.
User / service group
Cases
Nodes
JoyAI
DuplexOmni (S1)
Gemini 3.8 Live
Qwen3.5 Plus
Qwen3.5 Flash
Qwen3.8 Flash
Adults
172
229
21.40
3.06
5.68
3.49
4.37
3.49
Infants and toddlers
26
34
8.82
0.00
0.00
2.94
2.94
2.94
Schoolchildren
36
31
35.48
3.23
3.23
3.23
3.23
3.23
Older adults
29
58
27.59
6.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Visual impairment
27
46
13.04
6.52
0.00
6.52
2.17
4.35
Hearing impairment
13
17
35.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.88
5.88
Appendix
Table 12: Population and service-group Intervention Recall (%), part 2 of 2. Cases and required nodes are fixed across models; failed sessions remain in the node denominators.
Model
Daily living & services ↑
Health & caregiving ↑
Travel & mobility ↑
Education & work ↑
Sports & leisure ↑
Intervention nodes
144
146
77
82
106
MiniCPM-o 4.5
0.69
0.68
1.30
1.22
3.77
MOSS-VL
9.72
4.79
3.90
7.32
1.89
MOSS Preview
2.08
0.68
1.30
0.00
0.94
Venus-Omni
3.47
0.68
3.90
2.44
0.00
Gander
2.08
0.68
0.00
2.44
0.00
Appendix
Table 13: Intervention Recall by scenario (%, higher is better, ↑ ). Intervention-node counts give the denominators, including failed sessions. Bold marks the best value in each column.
Model
Inform 362 nodes
Warn 149 nodes
Feedback 29 nodes
Answer 15 nodes
MiniCPM-o 4.5
1.66
0.67
0.00
6.67
MOSS-VL
5.25
8.05
0.00
6.67
MOSS Preview
1.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
Venus-Omni
1.93
2.01
0.00
6.67
Gander
1.10
0.00
0.00
13.33
AURA
11.88
15.44
6.90
13.33
Appendix
Table 14: Intervention Recall (%) by reference action.
Task input
Intervention (%)
Full Correct (%)
Silence Success (%)
Unwanted / min
Failed
Recall
F1
MiniCPM-o 4.5
Written
1.44
2.63
1.38
95.45
0.14
0
Spoken
1.44
2.34
1.03
78.18
0.44
0
MOSS-VL
Written
5.77
7.06
4.48
82.73
1.41
0
Appendix
Table 15: Complete results for written and spoken task instructions on 400 videos per condition.
Figure 8: Source frames and session timeline: DuplexOmni (S1) on asm_boom_feedback_01 .
Window (s)
Action
Required content (English reference)
[0,22)
wait
Remain silent.
[22,27)
feedback
The excavator arm is on backwards; it should bend toward the rear.
[27,60)
wait
Remain silent.
Appendix
Table 16: Reference windows and required content for asm_boom_feedback_01 .
Figure 9: Source frames and session timeline: AURA on orbit_mug_06 .
Window (s)
Action
Required content (English reference)
[0,1.5)
wait
Remain silent.
[1.5,5.5)
inform
You’re holding a stainless steel thermos.
[5.5,19.7)
wait
Remain silent.
Appendix
Table 17: Reference windows and required content for orbit_mug_06 .
Figure 10: Source frames and session timeline: MOSS-VL on robot_host_rest .
Window (s)
Action
Required content (English reference)
[0,6)
wait
Remain silent.
[6,11)
inform
Welcome, please feel free to take a seat.
[11,30.08)
wait
Remain silent.
Appendix
Table 18: Reference windows and required content for robot_host_rest .
Figure 11: Source frames and session timeline: AURA on roof_leak .
Window (s)
Action
Required content (English reference)
[0,2)
wait
Remain silent.
[2,5)
inform
Water is leaking near a light fixture in the kitchen ceiling.
[5,22)
wait
Remain silent.
[22,25)
inform
Several containers and cloths on the floor are catching the leaking water.
[25,72.365)
wait
Remain silent.
Appendix
Table 19: Reference windows and required content for roof_leak .
Recent omni-modal large language models (Omni-LLMs) show great potential as real-time video assistants, which continuously perceive environments and guide users to achieve specific goals. Unlike traditional passive video understanding, interactive assistants should actively combine visual states, user goals, and prior knowledge to provide effective help. Evaluating this is rather challenging, as the model's unpredictable response dynamically changes the user's subsequent actions, which static offline datasets cannot accommodate. To address this bottleneck, we introduce OmniAssistBench. To solve the issue of diverging interaction paths where the same user goal can be achieved through various methods, we provide models with predefined priors derived from the source video, requiring them to guide users along the exact same routes. Since real interaction videos are rare, we construct the dataset by reverse-engineering existing Internet videos. We deduce logical user goals and segment the videos into multi-turn clips to simulate continuous interactions. This rigorous pipeline required over 1000 expert person-hours to build the dataset. Results show that the proprietary Gemini-3-Pro reaches 66.4 out of the max point of 100, while the open-source Qwen3-Omni-Instruct achieves 51.2. Although current models generally understand user inputs, they frequently provide incorrect or incomplete answers. Specifically, they struggle with visual prompts (e.g., hand gestures), fail to maintain historical context during multi-turn interactions, and fail to delay response until the target event. Results indicate substantial room for improvement before models can become reliable assistants.
Xianyun Sun, Chaoyou Fu, Zhengye Zhang +6
Nanjing University · Nankai University · University of Waterloo
Omnimodal large language models (Omni-LLMs) are increasingly expected to assist users while observing continuous audiovisual streams. However, existing evaluations provide limited insight into how reliably these models connect stream evidence and user needs to timely, sustained interventions. We introduce Omni-InteractScope, a benchmark of 1,479 human-annotated, cross-reviewed interactions with 1,790 temporal targets across eight task groups. It links input modalities, event triggers, intervention types, and user needs, covering event-timed tool invocation and query-free assistance alongside notifications, warnings, state tracking, and continuous responses. Our experimental results on the proposed benchmark reveal three critical limitations of current Omni-LLMs: (1) Timely tool invocation remains unreliable: all 12 evaluated models produce an on-time first response for at most 40% of tool-invocation targets, and joint timing-and-tool accuracy reaches at most 32.0%. (2) Query-free reminders remain poorly covered: all evaluated models achieve lower timely reference-target recall on query-free reminders than on explicit questions, measured on their respective target sets. Reminder recall never exceeds 23.0%. (3) End-to-end guidance coverage remains limited: nine models cover none of the 26 guidance sequences in full, and the remaining three cover only one to three sequences each. Targeted controls further show that tool-invocation scores alone do not establish event grounding and that reminder coverage depends on response history and frequency. These findings motivate developing and evaluating streaming assistants for timely action, initiative under general user needs, and coverage of entire response sequences.
Yinsong Yan, Ling Wang, Yuxuan Wang +11
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University · Alibaba Token Hub, Alibaba Group · Shanghai Jiaotong University +2
We introduce OmniInteract, a streaming benchmark for real-time omnimodal large language models evaluated through native online inference over audio-visual streams. Unlike offline video understanding or text-prompted streaming QA, OmniInteract preserves the original audio-visual stream and requires models to process it online, without access to future content. User queries and ambient sounds are embedded in the audio track, requiring models to detect multimodal triggers, decide when to respond, and answer while the stream unfolds. OmniInteract contains 250 videos with 1,430 temporally grounded response slots: 1,062 1Q1A slots across real-time, proactive, and nested scenarios, and 368 1QnA slots for continuous task monitoring and step guidance. Each slot includes a trigger, response window, and target answer. We evaluate response correctness, timing, invalid outputs, interruption handling, and context continuity using Interaction-Aware Quality-Timeliness F1, Interruption Diagnostic Suite, and Nested Chain Completion Score. Experiments show that current models remain weak in streaming interaction, with the best overall IA-QTF1 reaching only 0.368 and the best 1QnA IA-QTF1 only 0.052. Further study on mathematical reasoning in full-duplex settings shows that offline capability does not necessarily transfer to online interaction. Code and datasets will be made publicly accessible at https://github.com/Lucky-Lance/OmniInteract.