Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) achieve strong performance on VQA and scene understanding, yet affective reasoning remains vulnerable to shortcut behavior. Models may predict correct answers while neglecting people-centric cues such as micro expressions and body language, which weakens traceability and external verification. Prior reinforcement learning approaches mainly reward context or logical coherence without explicitly enforcing attention to human evidence. In addition, LLM as a Judge scoring often suffers from score clustering, which reduces reward discriminability. We propose AffectOmni, a GRPO trained framework for verifiable affective reasoning. AffectOmni introduces People Focus and Temporal Order rewards to encourage people-centric evidence selection and temporally structured reasoning, and it adopts within-group comparative scoring to produce more stable and discriminative reward signals. For verification, a Thinking Summarizer converts free form rationales into executable evidence instructions, which are grounded into pixel level evidence regions via SAM3 to provide an externally auditable interface outside the training loop. Experiments on IntentBench, Daily Omni, and WorldSense show consistent improvements over open source 7B scale baselines, including gains of 4.66% on emotion recognition and +14.29% on temporally sensitive tasks. Code is available at https://github.com/eliot127825-rgb/AffectOmni_nobody.
Video emotion analysis is typically framed as a static classification problem, treating each clip as an independent labeled unit. However, such a formulation overlooks a key psychological fact: emotions change as a result of cumulative reactions to consecutive causal events. To bridge this gap, we introduce Dynamic Affective Reasoning, the first large-scale benchmark for viewer-centric affect transitions and causal reasoning over consecutive video events. DAR contains 15,087 videos and 36,908 event-aligned affective segments annotated with 27 emotion categories. Unlike existing video-based emotion datasets, DAR presents a new viewer-centric perspective on fine-grained emotional expressions and transitions, and provides dense, temporally grounded, and causally explicit reasoning chains. Based on DAR, we formally define three challenging tasks: affective segmentation, fine-grained emotion classification, and affective reasoning. Complementing this benchmark, we propose DAR-R1, a two-stage framework that combines supervised fine-tuning with Group Relative Policy Optimization. Experiments across 10+ MLLMs show that DAR-R1 sets a new state-of-the-art for dynamic affective reasoning, in terms of both emotional localization and affective reasoning. Project page: https://github.com/Zhang-Zhiyan/DAR.
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) provides a structured framework for understanding a user's mental state by examining the interaction between cognitive and behavioral factors. However, out-of-the-box LLMs respond fluently and empathetically, yet collapse into validation & reflection, regardless of what the user actually needs. They know theoretical CBT (scoring up to 96% accuracy on licensing exam questions) but fail to apply it effectively. We explore this gap with a knowledge-guided framework that treats CBT dialogue as controlled affective reasoning: user narratives are decomposed into Beck's Cognitive Conceptualization structure, grounded in clinical SNOMED CT concepts validated via Natural Language Inference, and a Multiple Chain-of-Thought (MCoT) strategy selection between Validation & Reflection, Socratic Questioning, or Alternative Perspectives. To measure whether such guidance actually changes behavior, we introduce the Protocol Leverage Force (F), a behavior-level metric that captures how far an intervention shifts a model away from its default response. Across three open-weight LLMs and 14 RealCBT-derived case studies, evaluated with human experts, valence-arousal trajectories, and linguistic entrainment, F shows that simply introducing protocol definitions via single chain-of-thought prompting fails to change LLM behavior, while MCoT on these definitions guides strategy selection better. Still, the effect stays within 1% (approx. 1.2-1.3%), and all models remain biased toward Validation & Reflection. These results show CBT knowledge alone does not ensure effective application, giving the affective-computing community instrumentation to measure where LLMs fall short.