# arXiv cs.AI: THG-Omni: Traceable Human-Centric Graph Supervision for Video Reasoning [Canonical reading](https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-thg-omni-traceable-human-centric-graph-supervision-241a0daa) The authors of THG-Omni argue that answer-level supervision alone does not teach video models to interpret structured evidence, and that predictions often fail to show which participants, events, or intervals support an answer. Their framework links participant tracks with temporally grounded annotations. It checks candidate semantic claims against the source video and available audio before using them to construct training questions; track geometry supplies spatial and temporal supervision. At inference, THG-Omni uses a predicted graph constructed from the evaluation video. The authors report consistent improvements over the unadapted backbone on IntentBench across social reasoning, emotion understanding, and deception perception. On NExT-QA, they report 89.54% accuracy with the matched graph, compared with 85.10% without graph input. Further validation reports 78.22% accuracy with compact graph input, 78.02% with the full graph, and 77.58% without graph input. The authors also say a diagnostic shows that the predicted graph preserves evidence useful for answering questions even without the source video and audio. The abstract does not quantify the IntentBench improvements or provide enough experimental detail to assess how broadly the results apply. Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims. ## Original source arXiv cs.AI · Article Original source date: Nov 5, 2026 (2026-11-05). Date basis: Date basis not provided. Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-08T23:24:04.768Z. First observed: 2026-11-06T05:12:31.691Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-08T23:22:54.817Z. - [THG-Omni: Traceable Human-Centric Graph Supervision for Video Reasoning](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.07836) ## Limits The abstract does not quantify the reported IntentBench improvements or give enough experimental detail to assess how broadly the results apply. The NExT-QA accuracy comparison reports results with a matched graph and without graph input; the abstract does not report that comparison using a predicted graph. ## Open question How does NExT-QA performance with the predicted graph compare with the reported matched-graph result? ## Source-stated The authors argue that answer-level supervision alone does not teach models to interpret structured video evidence, and that predictions often do not identify their supporting participants, events, or intervals. > answer-level supervision alone does not teach a model to interpret structured video evidence - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.07836) ## Source-stated THG-Omni combines participant tracks with temporally grounded annotations and checks candidate semantic claims against video and available audio before using them to construct training questions. > Candidate semantic claims are checked against the source video and available audio before they are used to construct training questions - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.07836) ## Source-stated At inference, THG-Omni uses a predicted graph constructed from the evaluation video. > At inference, THG-Omni uses a predicted graph constructed from the evaluation video. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.07836) ## Source-stated On NExT-QA, the authors report 89.54% accuracy with the matched graph, compared with 85.10% without graph input. > On NExT-QA, THG-Omni achieves 89.54\\% accuracy with the matched graph, compared with 85.10\\% without graph input. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.07836) ## Source-stated In further validation, compact graph input scored 78.22% accuracy, compared with 78.02% using the full graph and 77.58% without graph input. > compact graph input achieves 78.22\\% accuracy, compared with 78.02\\% using the full graph and 77.58\\% without graph input. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.07836) ## Source-stated The authors report consistent improvements over the unadapted backbone on IntentBench across social reasoning, emotion understanding, and deception perception. > Experiments on IntentBench show consistent improvements over the unadapted backbone across social reasoning, emotion understanding, and deception perception. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.07836) ## Source and contributor context Dang, Jisheng, Wei, Kai, Lin, Ronghao, Wang, Bimei, Peng, Hong, Zheng, Wei-Shi, Hu, Bin, Tian, Qi, Chua, Tat-Seng · Article author These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage. ## Source media No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction. ## Terms and references Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement. ## arXiv arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed. - [Explore this context](/entities/arxiv) - [Reference](https://arxiv.org/) - [Reference](https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/index.html) ## Editorial provenance Version 1. Publication ID: 0ee548b0-b492-4ee9-8a0c-9be202364b4d. Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna. Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-08T23:24:04.768Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true. Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material\_development. Observation: dc80577a27dddd3f53b25e71ec27976da5d442a6d06ac575dc9d5beb7870752a. Source text hash: 69c5fe235af8def4504a7843f6dd72d0338559abb8b67c370d06b33c3b073527. ## Revision and source-check history ### Version 1 — 2026-11-08T23:24:04.768Z The authors of THG-Omni argue that answer-level supervision alone does not teach video models to interpret structured evidence, and that predictions often fail to show which participants, events, or intervals support an answer. Their framework links participant tracks with temporally grounded annotations. It checks candidate semantic claims against the source video and available audio before using them to construct training questions; track geometry supplies spatial and temporal supervision. At inference, THG-Omni uses a predicted graph constructed from the evaluation video. The authors report consistent improvements over the unadapted backbone on IntentBench across social reasoning, emotion understanding, and deception perception. On NExT-QA, they report 89.54% accuracy with the matched graph, compared with 85.10% without graph input. Further validation reports 78.22% accuracy with compact graph input, 78.02% with the full graph, and 77.58% without graph input. The authors also say a diagnostic shows that the predicted graph preserves evidence useful for answering questions even without the source video and audio. The abstract does not quantify the IntentBench improvements or provide enough experimental detail to assess how broadly the results apply. ## Original source arXiv cs.AI · Article Original source date: Nov 5, 2026 (2026-11-05). Date basis: Date basis not provided. Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-08T23:24:04.768Z. First observed: 2026-11-06T05:12:31.691Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-08T23:22:54.817Z. - [THG-Omni: Traceable Human-Centric Graph Supervision for Video Reasoning](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.07836) ## Limits The abstract does not quantify the reported IntentBench improvements or give enough experimental detail to assess how broadly the results apply. The NExT-QA accuracy comparison reports results with a matched graph and without graph input; the abstract does not report that comparison using a predicted graph. ## Open question How does NExT-QA performance with the predicted graph compare with the reported matched-graph result? ## Source-stated The authors argue that answer-level supervision alone does not teach models to interpret structured video evidence, and that predictions often do not identify their supporting participants, events, or intervals. > answer-level supervision alone does not teach a model to interpret structured video evidence - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.07836) ## Source-stated THG-Omni combines participant tracks with temporally grounded annotations and checks candidate semantic claims against video and available audio before using them to construct training questions. > Candidate semantic claims are checked against the source video and available audio before they are used to construct training questions - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.07836) ## Source-stated At inference, THG-Omni uses a predicted graph constructed from the evaluation video. > At inference, THG-Omni uses a predicted graph constructed from the evaluation video. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.07836) ## Source-stated On NExT-QA, the authors report 89.54% accuracy with the matched graph, compared with 85.10% without graph input. > On NExT-QA, THG-Omni achieves 89.54\\% accuracy with the matched graph, compared with 85.10\\% without graph input. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.07836) ## Source-stated In further validation, compact graph input scored 78.22% accuracy, compared with 78.02% using the full graph and 77.58% without graph input. > compact graph input achieves 78.22\\% accuracy, compared with 78.02\\% using the full graph and 77.58\\% without graph input. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.07836) ## Source-stated The authors report consistent improvements over the unadapted backbone on IntentBench across social reasoning, emotion understanding, and deception perception. > Experiments on IntentBench show consistent improvements over the unadapted backbone across social reasoning, emotion understanding, and deception perception. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.07836) ## Source and contributor context Dang, Jisheng, Wei, Kai, Lin, Ronghao, Wang, Bimei, Peng, Hong, Zheng, Wei-Shi, Hu, Bin, Tian, Qi, Chua, Tat-Seng · Article author These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage. ## Source media No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction. ## Terms and references Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement. ## arXiv arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed. - [Explore this context](/entities/arxiv) - [Reference](https://arxiv.org/) - [Reference](https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/index.html) ## Editorial provenance Version 1. Publication ID: 0ee548b0-b492-4ee9-8a0c-9be202364b4d. Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna. Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-08T23:24:04.768Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true. Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material\_development. Observation: dc80577a27dddd3f53b25e71ec27976da5d442a6d06ac575dc9d5beb7870752a. Source text hash: 69c5fe235af8def4504a7843f6dd72d0338559abb8b67c370d06b33c3b073527. ### uncertain — 2026-11-08T23:24:04.768Z — anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 Publication: 0ee548b0-b492-4ee9-8a0c-9be202364b4d attribution — pass: The reading consistently attributes the motivation, method and results to the paper's authors ("The authors argue", "they report"). The title uses the arXiv cs.AI feed label, which matches the cs.AI cross-listing. No claim is presented as established fact or as Escape Meridian's view. > Subjects: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) summary — uncertain: The summary is faithful but hard for non-specialists to follow. Central terms are never explained in plain language: what the human-centric graph is (a structured map of participants, their attributes, actions, affect, interactions and timing), omni-modal, answer-level supervision, unadapted backbone, inference, matched graph, IntentBench and NExT-QA. It also drops the named tools (Segment Anything Model 3 tracks, Qwen3-VL annotations). It does not say why traceability matters, namely answers grounded in identifiable participants and events. Smallest repair: add a plain-language sentence defining the graph and its purpose, and add tooltips for the benchmark and model terms. > teach an omni-modal reasoning model to interpret participant attributes, actions, affect, interactions, and their timing from a structured graph date — pass: evidence.originalPublished is 2026-11-05, which matches the arXiv v1 submission date. It is not the later feed date of 2026-11-06. > \[Submitted on 5 Nov 2026\] support — pass: Every claim and figure (89.54% vs 85.10%; 78.22%, 78.02%, 77.58%) matches the abstract verbatim and is framed as an author report. The limitations are accurate: the IntentBench gains are not quantified, and the NExT-QA comparison uses the matched graph, not the predicted graph used at inference. The question follows directly from that gap and is not leading. The reading does not invent any benefits or costs. > On NExT-QA, THG-Omni achieves 89.54\\% accuracy with the matched graph, compared with 85.10\\% without graph input. media — pass: The selected media is the verified direct arXiv abstract page for this paper, which is the most direct way to reach the source. No better source media was found. ## Recorded references Explicit citations in public readings and public file attachments to this reading. Shared topics are not citations. Other artifact types need an explicit reference adapter. No public references recorded here yet. [Reference data (JSON)](/readings/241a0daa832045144b0f2c0bf957dbe7f31a41d50f43d93cf7b5f11bf3349291/references.json) ## Corrections and challenges [Send a correction or an opposing source](https://escapemeridian.com/corrections/) [JSON record](https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-thg-omni-traceable-human-centric-graph-supervision-241a0daa.json)