Multimodal Human-Annotated Dataset Overview

Updated 1 December 2025

Multimodal human-annotated datasets are structured corpora combining data from visual, auditory, textual, and sensor modalities with expert or crowd-sourced labels.
They underpin research in vision–language grounding, dynamic scene understanding, medical AI, and robotics through precise data alignment and multi-modal synchronization.
Robust annotation pipelines and quality controls, including inter-annotator agreement metrics and automated augmentation, ensure reliable benchmarking for advanced modeling tasks.

A multimodal human-annotated dataset is a structured corpus in which data of multiple modalities—e.g., visual, textual, auditory, and/or sensor streams—are collected, aligned, and labeled with human-provided annotations. Such resources are foundational for developing and benchmarking models capable of cross-modal reasoning, grounding, fusion, or generation tasks. Multimodal human-annotated datasets underpin progress across vision–language, speech, 3D scene understanding, medical AI, robotics, and social computing.

1. Scope and Typology of Multimodal Human-Annotated Datasets

Multimodal datasets span a wide range of domains, scales, and annotation types, as reflected in the diversity of recent releases:

Domain coverage: Datasets exist for image–captioning across 36 languages with human-written visible descriptions ("Crossmodal-3600" (Thapliyal et al., 2022)), high-fidelity motion capture of human full-body activity ("HuMMan" (Cai et al., 2022), "HUMAN4D" (Chatzitofis et al., 2021)), medical imaging with ROI and diagnostic QAs ("SemiHVision" (Wang et al., 19 Oct 2024)), robotics HRI ("REFLEX" (Khanna et al., 20 Feb 2025)), academic lecture video with rich slide and ASR alignments ("M³AV" (Chen et al., 21 Mar 2024)), outdoor 3D pose ("Human-M3" (Fan et al., 2023)), and sentiment/sarcasm in under-resourced or LRLs ("DravidianMultiModality" (Chakravarthi et al., 2021), "MuSaG" (Scott et al., 28 Oct 2025)).
Modalities: Canonical modalities include RGB images, video, audio waveforms, motion/pose skeletons, point clouds (LiDAR, depth), text transcripts, slide OCR, radar, and laser vibration signals (see "A large-scale multimodal dataset of human speech recognition" (Ge et al., 2023)).
Annotation targets: Tasks range from instance-level classification (sentiment, intent, sarcasm), span-level action labeling (subject–predicate–object triplets (Suzuki et al., 2021)), region-of-interest and grounding (boxes, masks), temporal event segmentation, dense image/scene captioning, transcript correction, phonetic alignment, or structured QA.

2. Annotation Pipeline and Quality Controls

Robust pipeline design is crucial for annotation validity, inter-annotator consistency, and downstream generalizability.

Protocol design: Annotation tasks are adapted to modality and task (e.g., word/phone boundaries for speech (Ge et al., 2023), triplet labeling with FOL mapping for action inference (Suzuki et al., 2021), bounding boxes for pose and HOI (Liu et al., 30 Sep 2025), region-phrase links for dense captioning (Lin et al., 16 Nov 2025)).
Expert vs. crowd sourcing: For domains demanding expert knowledge (e.g., human trafficking ads (Tong et al., 2017), radiology (Wang et al., 19 Oct 2024)), annotation is restricted to domain experts; for sentiment or intent, trained volunteers or paid annotators are used with amenable guidelines ("DravidianMultiModality" (Chakravarthi et al., 2021), "MIntRec" (Zhang et al., 2022), "MuSaG" (Scott et al., 28 Oct 2025)).
Quality assurance: Methods include majority voting (to resolve label disagreements (Zhang et al., 2022, Scott et al., 28 Oct 2025)), explicit inter-annotator agreement metrics (Fleiss' κ for sentiment/sarcasm: κ=0.73–0.75 (Chakravarthi et al., 2021), κ=0.623 (Scott et al., 28 Oct 2025)), expert spot-checks (mean re-projection error (Cai et al., 2022)), stratified or randomized resampling, and post-hoc error correction or flagging.
Automation and semi-automatic augmentation: Increasing dataset scale is achieved by semi-automatic pipelines where a significant subset is labeled by humans, and large-scale synthetic or weakly annotated data is added with model-in-the-loop or guided generation, with subsequent annealing (see "SemiHVision" (Wang et al., 19 Oct 2024): 30 % human, 70 % synthetic per fine-tuning pass, then anneal on the human slice).

3. Data Organization, Modality Alignment, and File Structures

Effective utilization hinges on precise data synchronization and transparent organization:

Alignment: Synchronization is performed on time-stamped signals (e.g., ±1 ms alignment for speech/radar/video (Ge et al., 2023), HW-sync for MoCap/RGBD (Chatzitofis et al., 2021, Cai et al., 2022)), speaker/face–box mapping (Zhang et al., 2022), and multimodal region-speech linkages (Lin et al., 16 Nov 2025).
File structure: Common patterns are modality- or speaker/clip-centric folders containing per-modality data, annotation JSON/CSV, and optionally meta-data (domain, action labels, participant demographics). Raw/processed split organization is typical ("Human-M3" (Fan et al., 2023), "REFLEX" (Khanna et al., 20 Feb 2025)).
Data formats: Widely used formats are WAV/MP4/JPG/PNG for raw data, CSV/JSON for annotations, .c3d or .ply for 3D sequences, TextGrid (Praat) for phonetic annotation, DICOM/PNG for medical images.

4. Evaluation Protocols and Metrics

Comprehensive benchmark reporting is facilitated by robust, task-specific metrics:

Task Type	Metric(s) / Formula
Pose Estimation	MPJPE, PCK@x (2D/3D), mAP
Action/Intent/Sentiment	Accuracy, Macro-F1, Cohen's/Fleiss’ κ
Video Grounding	IoU for box/region, Recall@k s, MIoU
Captioning/Summarization	BLEU, ROUGE-{1/2/L}, CIDEr, SPICE, BERTScore
Speech/Lip Reading	WER, PER, SDR, PESQ, STOI
QA/Reasoning	Short-answer composite (BERT-F1/CosSim/KeywordCov), VQA Accuracy
Human annotation quality	Inter-annotator agreement: κ (Cohen/Fleiss)

Examples: MPJPE for pose is $\mathrm{MPJPE} = \frac{1}{NJ} \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^J \lVert \hat{p}_{ij} - p_{ij} \rVert_2$ ; CIDEr for caption similarity is computed as a TF–IDF n-gram cosine over up to n=4 (Thapliyal et al., 2022).

5. Exemplary Datasets and Comparative Characteristics

Dataset	Modalities	Annotation Target	Scale	Domain	Human IAA (κ)	Notable Feature
Crossmodal-3600 (Thapliyal et al., 2022)	Image, Text	Multilingual caption	3,600 images, 36 langs	Cross-regional images	≥0.98 "medium"	Visible-only, non-translated gold captions
HuMMan (Cai et al., 2022)	RGB, Depth, Point Cloud, MoCap	Pose, SMPL, 3D mesh	60M frames, 1,000 subjects	Motion, action, 3D human	≈15 px reproj. err	500 atomic actions, 133 keypoints
REFLEX (Khanna et al., 20 Feb 2025)	Video, Audio, Face/Gaze, Body	Emotion, pose, trust, phase	55 users, 660 failures	HRI	(not reported)	Multiphase HRC, 48-modal affect labels
SemiHVision (Wang et al., 19 Oct 2024)	2D/3D Medical Images, Text	ROI, finding, QA, discussion	4.9M finetune entries	Medical imaging	κ_ROI≈0.78	Hybrid human+synthetic, multi-slice 3D volumes
Human-M3 (Fan et al., 2023)	RGB, LiDAR, 3D Pose	SMPL joints, box, traj.	89.6k 3D poses	Outdoor, multi-person	~10% manual QC	Multi-view, multi-modal, no body-worn sensors
MuSaG (Scott et al., 28 Oct 2025)	Video, Audio, Text	Sarcasm, unimodal/multimodal	214 statements	German sarcasm TV	κ=0.623	Full-modal, cross-modal human–model comparison

6. Research Applications and Benchmarking Insights

Multimodal human-annotated datasets enable a variety of advanced research frontiers:

Vision–language grounding: Learning robust image–text and cross-lingual mappings is directly supported by datasets such as Crossmodal-3600 and MultiSubs (Wang et al., 2021), powering benchmarking for image captioning, ground-truth evaluation (Thapliyal et al., 2022, Wang et al., 2021).
Temporal and semantic reasoning: Video–text action alignment and logical forms, e.g., via $\langle \mathrm{subject}, \mathrm{predicate}, \mathrm{object} \rangle$ triplets, open the door for multimodal entailment, semantic parsing, and joint logical inference (Suzuki et al., 2021).
3D and dynamic scene understanding: Multi-view, multi-modal MoCap datasets (HuMMan, HUMAN4D) and outdoor pose sets (Human-M3) provide synchronized 4D (space+time) data to benchmark algorithms for reconstruction, dynamic mesh analysis, behavior prediction, and cross-modal fusion (Cai et al., 2022, Chatzitofis et al., 2021, Fan et al., 2023).
Speech and audio fusion: High-resolution radar, audio, and laser modalities permit paper of robust ASR, silent speech decoding, and sensor fusion (Ge et al., 2023).
Medical multimodality: Large-scale, region-annotated, QA-augmented corpora ("SemiHVision" (Wang et al., 19 Oct 2024)) facilitate both clinical VQA and instruction finetuning, with quantifiable gains in diagnostic reasoning (average GPT-4o score up from 0.78→1.29 via human annotation annealing).
HRI and interaction modeling: Datasets with rich affect and trust/prosody/gaze labels across temporally segmented HRC phases support nuanced paper of human-robot breakdown and repair (Khanna et al., 20 Feb 2025).

7. Challenges, Limitations, and Future Directions

Key limitations persist:

Scale vs. annotation quality trade-off: Purely human annotation is costly to scale (e.g., only 134 annotated clips in DravidianMultiModality (Chakravarthi et al., 2021)). Mixing synthetic and human data (e.g., SemiHVision (Wang et al., 19 Oct 2024)) is effective but requires careful annealing.
Domain and demographic coverage: Many datasets are still biased to particular domains (e.g., movie reviews, TV series, academic lectures) or participant pools (university, clinical, or language/geography-restricted).
Annotation sparsity and granularity: Free-form labels and predicate diversity induce long-tail issues (65% singleton action triplets in (Suzuki et al., 2021)). Bounding-box and temporal localization benefit from extensive consensus protocols; for some modalities (e.g., medical), inter-annotator agreement remains suboptimal for specific labels ( $\kappa$ <0.6 on PathVQA (Wang et al., 19 Oct 2024)).
Multilingual and cross-cultural grounding: Despite advances (XM3600, DenseAnnotate), low-resource language and culture-specific annotations are still rare and require ongoing expansion (Thapliyal et al., 2022, Lin et al., 16 Nov 2025).

A plausible implication is that ongoing progress will require hybrid annotation, deeper alignment protocols (for cross-modal temporal, spatial, and semantic synchronization), and more fine-grained taxonomies tailored to each downstream modeling task. The increasing use of automated pipelines (pre-annotation, model-suggested QA, translation) with expert verification is accelerating data growth without catastrophic quality loss.

References: