pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.09904 · v2 · submitted 2026-05-11 · 💻 cs.CV

Recognition: no theorem link

TOC-Bench: A Temporal Object Consistency Benchmark for Video Large Language Models

Junzhe Chen , Siyuan Meng , Yuxi Chen , Man Zhao , Wenyao Gui , Xiaojie Guo
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 06:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV
keywords temporal object consistencyVideo-LLMsbenchmarkobject trackingtemporal reasoningvideo understandingevent ordering
0
0 comments X

The pith

Video large language models fail to maintain temporal object consistency across frames.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents TOC-Bench, a new benchmark to evaluate whether video large language models can preserve the identity and continuity of objects throughout a video sequence. It filters questions to require actual temporal visual evidence rather than language knowledge or single-frame cues. Experiments demonstrate that models have significant difficulties with counting events, ordering them, reasoning about object identities, and verifying against hallucinations, even when they do well on broader video tasks. This suggests that maintaining object-centric temporal coherence is a fundamental challenge for these models.

Core claim

TOC-Bench consists of 2,323 high-quality QA pairs over 1,951 videos, each grounded in object tracks and temporal timelines. After removing over 60% of candidates with a three-layer protocol to ensure temporal necessity, tests on representative Video-LLMs reveal major weaknesses in temporal object consistency.

What carries the argument

The three-layer temporal-necessity filtering protocol applied to object-track grounded questions to retain only those requiring temporally ordered visual evidence.

If this is right

  • General video benchmarks miss key limitations in object consistency.
  • Targeted improvements are needed in identity-sensitive and ordering tasks.
  • TOC-Bench offers a way to diagnose and advance object-aware temporal reasoning.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Models might benefit from explicit object state tracking modules integrated into their architecture.
  • The approach could be adapted to test consistency in other sequential data like audio or text narratives.
  • Longer videos with more reappearances would likely show even lower performance.

Load-bearing premise

The three-layer temporal-necessity filtering protocol successfully eliminates all questions answerable without requiring temporally ordered visual evidence from the video frames.

What would settle it

Finding that top-performing Video-LLMs on general benchmarks also score highly on TOC-Bench without specific training for object tracking would challenge the claim of it being a major unsolved challenge.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.09904 by Junzhe Chen, Man Zhao, Siyuan Meng, Wenyao Gui, Xiaojie Guo, Yuxi Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Representative TOC-Bench QA examples. The benchmark supports multiple deterministic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The construction pipeline of TOC-Bench. 3 TOC-Bench: Temporal Object Consistency Benchmark TOC-Bench evaluates temporal object consistency in Video-LLMs, focusing on whether models can track object identity, state, and persistence across time. We use diagnostic to mean that the benchmark isolates this capability through controlled, automatically gradable QA items rather than broad average-case video QA. TO… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Source video composition of TOC-Bench. tracks, and derive temporal events such as appearance, disappearance, occlusion, reappearance, and cross-object relations from the retained tracks. Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct and SAM3 are therefore used for scalable candidate annotation, while downstream QA construction relies on filtered object tracks and rule-derived event timelines. More details are provided in section A… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overall composition of TOC-Bench. (a)-(d) depict the distribution of QA items across the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Hallucination-aware composition of TOC-Bench in multiple-choice dimensions. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radar visualization of model performance across the 10 diagnostic dimensions of TOC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The exact system prompt for VLM. A More Details about Event Detection A.1 Noun-Phrase Extraction For each source video, we first sample frames at 1 fps and limit the input to a maximum of 10 frames. The sampled frames are passed to Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct in a single multimodal turn to obtain a list of object-centric noun phrases. We use a VLM rather than a fixed object vocabulary because TOC-Bench draws from… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dimension-aware surface-realization prompt design used in Stage 2. The system prompt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Source dataset by diagnostic-dimension coverage in TOC-Bench. Charades and Perception [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Dimension-wise qualitative examples from TOC-Bench, Part I. The examples cover tem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Dimension-wise qualitative examples from TOC-Bench, Part II. The examples cover [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Answer-balance audit across question formats. The correct labels are approximately [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Subject-reference diversity in TOC-Bench. The left panel shows the most frequent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Length-leakage diagnostics for TOC-Bench. The analysis compares question lengths, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Model-by-dimension accuracy heatmap. The heatmap highlights that event counting and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Tier-level and format-level accuracy breakdowns. Models generally perform better on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Hallucination-bucket accuracy across models. Different models show different robustness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Overall accuracy versus hallucination diagnostic accuracy. HDA is not perfectly aligned [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Failure case on event counting. The question asks how many times the apple comes back into view. The correct answer is 4, but the majority of evaluated models predict 2. This example shows that models can recognize the target object and its reappearance events locally, yet still fail to accumulate repeated object-level events across the full video. object is absent from the video, but because the question… view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Failure case on conditional state reasoning. The question asks for the state of the woman at the moment when the brown pouch comes back into view. The correct answer is that the brown pouch never comes back into view, while the majority of models choose a plausible visual state of the woman. This example illustrates a hallucination-aware temporal failure: models tend to assume the queried event happens an… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Video large language models (Video-LLMs) have made strong progress in general video understanding, but their ability to maintain temporal object consistency remains underexplored. Existing benchmarks often emphasize event recognition, action understanding, or coarse temporal reasoning, while rarely testing whether models can preserve the identity, state, and continuity of the same object across occlusion, disappearance, reappearance, state transitions, and cross-object interactions. We introduce TOC-Bench, a diagnostic benchmark for evaluating temporal object consistency in Video-LLMs. TOC-Bench is object-track grounded: each queried subject is linked to a per-frame trajectory and a structured temporal event timeline. To ensure that questions require temporally ordered visual evidence rather than language priors, single-frame shortcuts, or unordered frame cues, we design a three-layer temporal-necessity filtering protocol, which removes 60.7% of candidate QA pairs and retains 17,900 temporally dependent items across 10 diagnostic dimensions. From this pool, we construct a human-verified benchmark with 2,323 high-quality QA pairs over 1,951 videos. Experiments on representative Video-LLMs show that temporal object consistency remains a major unsolved challenge, with notable weaknesses in event counting, event ordering, identity-sensitive reasoning, and hallucination-aware verification, even when models perform well on general video understanding benchmarks. These results suggest that object-centric temporal coherence is a key bottleneck for current Video-LLMs, and that TOC-Bench provides a focused platform for diagnosing and improving object-aware temporal reasoning. The resource is available at https://github.com/cjzcjz666/toc_bench.git.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces TOC-Bench, a diagnostic benchmark of 2,323 human-verified QA pairs over 1,951 videos for evaluating temporal object consistency in Video-LLMs. Each item is object-track grounded with per-frame trajectories and event timelines; a three-layer temporal-necessity filtering protocol removes 60.7% of candidates to retain only questions requiring temporally ordered visual evidence of object identity, state, and continuity across 10 diagnostic dimensions. Experiments on representative Video-LLMs demonstrate persistent weaknesses in event counting, event ordering, identity-sensitive reasoning, and hallucination-aware verification, even when models perform well on general video understanding tasks.

Significance. If the filtering protocol is shown to be effective, TOC-Bench would supply a focused, object-centric diagnostic that isolates a previously underexplored bottleneck in Video-LLMs. The track-grounded construction and explicit separation from language priors or single-frame shortcuts would make the benchmark a useful complement to existing video QA resources and a concrete target for model improvement.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods (three-layer filtering protocol)] The three-layer temporal-necessity filtering protocol (described in the methods) removes 60.7% of candidates and retains 2,323 pairs, yet the manuscript reports no quantitative validation—such as model accuracy on frame-shuffled inputs, single-frame inputs, or text-only baselines—for the retained set. Without these controls, it remains possible that a non-negligible fraction of items can still be solved via language priors or unordered cues, undermining the attribution of observed failures specifically to temporal object consistency.
  2. [Benchmark construction and human verification] The human-verification step that produces the final 2,323 QA pairs lacks reported inter-annotator agreement rates, exact annotation guidelines, or disagreement-resolution procedures. These details are required to establish that the retained items genuinely demand temporally ordered visual evidence rather than subjective interpretation.
  3. [Experiments and results] The experimental results section states that models exhibit notable weaknesses in event counting, ordering, and identity reasoning, but provides no per-dimension accuracy tables, comparison against strong text-only or image-only baselines, or statistical significance tests. These omissions make it difficult to quantify how much the reported gaps exceed general video-LLM limitations.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §3] The abstract and methods would benefit from an explicit enumeration of the ten diagnostic dimensions and one or two concrete QA examples per dimension to illustrate the temporal requirements.
  2. [Results figures] Figure captions and axis labels in the results figures should include exact numerical values rather than relying solely on bar heights for readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

Thank you for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below. We agree that additional validations, details, and tables will strengthen the paper and will incorporate them in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The three-layer temporal-necessity filtering protocol (described in the methods) removes 60.7% of candidates and retains 2,323 pairs, yet the manuscript reports no quantitative validation—such as model accuracy on frame-shuffled inputs, single-frame inputs, or text-only baselines—for the retained set. Without these controls, it remains possible that a non-negligible fraction of items can still be solved via language priors or unordered cues, undermining the attribution of observed failures specifically to temporal object consistency.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. The three-layer protocol was explicitly designed to eliminate candidates solvable without temporally ordered visual evidence of object identity and continuity, but we did not report explicit quantitative controls such as frame-shuffled, single-frame, or text-only baselines on the final set. We will add these experiments to the revised methods and results sections, including accuracy tables showing performance drops under these conditions to confirm that retained items require temporal object consistency. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The human-verification step that produces the final 2,323 QA pairs lacks reported inter-annotator agreement rates, exact annotation guidelines, or disagreement-resolution procedures. These details are required to establish that the retained items genuinely demand temporally ordered visual evidence rather than subjective interpretation.

    Authors: We agree that these details are necessary for rigor and reproducibility. The verification process used multiple annotators with guidelines focused on confirming temporal dependency, object-track grounding, and rejection of language-prior shortcuts, with disagreements resolved via discussion and majority vote. In the revision we will include the full annotation guidelines, inter-annotator agreement rates (e.g., Fleiss' kappa), and the resolution procedure. revision: yes

  3. Referee: The experimental results section states that models exhibit notable weaknesses in event counting, ordering, and identity reasoning, but provides no per-dimension accuracy tables, comparison against strong text-only or image-only baselines, or statistical significance tests. These omissions make it difficult to quantify how much the reported gaps exceed general video-LLM limitations.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current results section would benefit from greater granularity. The revised manuscript will add per-dimension accuracy tables for all 10 diagnostic dimensions, direct comparisons against text-only and image-only baselines, and statistical significance tests (e.g., paired t-tests) to quantify how the observed weaknesses in temporal object consistency exceed general video understanding performance. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: benchmark construction is self-contained with no derivations or self-referential steps

full rationale

The manuscript constructs TOC-Bench via data sourcing, a three-layer filtering protocol, human verification, and empirical testing on external Video-LLMs. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or mathematical derivations appear. The filtering step is described as a methodological design choice to retain temporally dependent QA pairs (removing 60.7% of candidates), but the paper does not reduce this claim to a self-definition, a fitted input renamed as prediction, or a load-bearing self-citation chain. Evaluation results are reported against independent models on general benchmarks, providing external comparison. This is a standard benchmark paper with no load-bearing circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on domain assumptions about what constitutes temporally dependent questions in video QA and standard human verification practices for benchmark quality.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The three-layer filtering protocol removes questions answerable without temporally ordered visual evidence
    Invoked when describing how 60.7% of candidate QA pairs are removed to retain temporally dependent items.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5603 in / 1279 out tokens · 86106 ms · 2026-05-13T06:46:02.967083+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · 13 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Qwen3-VL Technical Report

    Shuai Bai, Yuxuan Cai, Ruizhe Chen, Keqin Chen, Xionghui Chen, Zesen Cheng, Lianghao Deng, Wei Ding, Chang Gao, Chunjiang Ge, et al. Qwen3-vl technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Qwen2.5-VL Technical Report

    Shuai Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, Sibo Song, Kai Dang, Peng Wang, Shijie Wang, Jun Tang, Humen Zhong, Yuanzhi Zhu, Mingkun Yang, Zhaohai Li, Jianqiang Wan, Pengfei Wang, Wei Ding, Zheren Fu, Yiheng Xu, Jiabo Ye, Xi Zhang, Tianbao Xie, Zesen Cheng, Hang Zhang, Zhibo Yang, Haiyang Xu, and Junyang Lin. Qwen2.5-vl technical report. a...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    ByteDance Seed Team. Seed2.0. https://seed.bytedance.com/en/seed2, 2026. Official model page for the Seed2.0 series, including Pro, Lite, and Mini. Accessed: 2026-05-02

    work page 2026

  4. [4]

    Temporalbench: Benchmarking fine-grained temporal understanding for multimodal video models,

    Mu Cai, Reuben Tan, Jianrui Zhang, Bocheng Zou, Kai Zhang, Feng Yao, Fangrui Zhu, Jing Gu, Yiwu Zhong, Yuzhang Shang, Yao Dou, Jaden Park, Jianfeng Gao, Yong Jae Lee, and Jianwei Yang. Temporalbench: Towards fine-grained temporal understanding for multimodal video models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10818, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    SAM 3: Segment Anything with Concepts

    Nicolas Carion, Laura Gustafson, Yuan-Ting Hu, Shoubhik Debnath, Ronghang Hu, Didac Suris, Chaitanya Ryali, Kalyan Vasudev Alwala, Haitham Khedr, Andrew Huang, et al. Sam 3: Segment anything with concepts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.16719, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Internvl: Scaling up vision foundation models and aligning for generic visual-linguistic tasks

    Zhe Chen, Jiannan Wu, Wenhai Wang, Weijie Su, Guo Chen, Sen Xing, Muyan Zhong, Qinglong Zhang, Xizhou Zhu, Lewei Lu, et al. Internvl: Scaling up vision foundation models and aligning for generic visual-linguistic tasks. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 24185–24198, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    VideoLLaMA 2: Advancing Spatial-Temporal Modeling and Audio Understanding in Video-LLMs

    Zesen Cheng, Sicong Leng, Hang Zhang, Yifei Xin, Xin Li, Guanzheng Chen, Yongxin Zhu, Wenqi Zhang, Ziyang Luo, Deli Zhao, et al. Videollama 2: Advancing spatial-temporal modeling and audio understanding in video-llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07476, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Daniel Cores, Michael Dorkenwald, Manuel Mucientes, Cees G. M. Snoek, and Yuki M. Asano. Tvbench: Redesigning video-language evaluation, 2024

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    MOSE: A new dataset for video object segmentation in complex scenes

    Henghui Ding, Chang Liu, Shuting He, Xudong Jiang, Philip HS Torr, and Song Bai. MOSE: A new dataset for video object segmentation in complex scenes. InICCV, 2023

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Sam2long: Enhancing sam 2 for long video segmentation with a training-free memory tree

    Shuangrui Ding, Rui Qian, Xiaoyi Dong, Pan Zhang, Yuhang Zang, Yuhang Cao, Yuwei Guo, Dahua Lin, and Jiaqi Wang. Sam2long: Enhancing sam 2 for long video segmentation with a training-free memory tree. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 13614–13624, 2025

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    Mmbench-video: A long-form multi-shot benchmark for holistic video understanding

    Xinyu Fang, Kangrui Mao, Haodong Duan, Xiangyu Zhao, Yining Li, Dahua Lin, and Kai Chen. Mmbench-video: A long-form multi-shot benchmark for holistic video understanding. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:89098–89124, 2024

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Video-R1: Reinforcing Video Reasoning in MLLMs

    Kaituo Feng, Kaixiong Gong, Bohao Li, Zonghao Guo, Yibing Wang, Tianshuo Peng, Junfei Wu, Xiaoying Zhang, Benyou Wang, and Xiangyu Yue. Video-r1: Reinforcing video reasoning in mllms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21776, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Video-mme: The first-ever comprehensive evaluation benchmark of multi-modal llms in video analysis

    Chaoyou Fu, Yuhan Dai, Yongdong Luo, Lei Li, Shuhuai Ren, Renrui Zhang, Zihan Wang, Chenyu Zhou, Yunhang Shen, Mengdan Zhang, et al. Video-mme: The first-ever comprehensive evaluation benchmark of multi-modal llms in video analysis. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 24108–24118, 2025

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Video-MME-v2: Towards the Next Stage in Benchmarks for Comprehensive Video Understanding

    Chaoyou Fu, Haozhi Yuan, Yuhao Dong, Yi-Fan Zhang, Yunhang Shen, Xiaoxing Hu, Xueying Li, Jinsen Su, Chengwu Long, Xiaoyao Xie, et al. Video-mme-v2: Towards the next stage in benchmarks for comprehensive video understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.05015, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

    Google. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview. https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/models/ gemini-3.1-pro-preview , 2026. Google AI for Developers model documentation. Accessed: 2026-05-02. 10

    work page 2026

  16. [16]

    Tgif-qa: Toward spatio-temporal reasoning in visual question answering

    Yunseok Jang, Yale Song, Youngjae Yu, Youngjin Kim, and Gunhee Kim. Tgif-qa: Toward spatio-temporal reasoning in visual question answering. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2758–2766, 2017

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    Segment anything

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer Whitehead, Alexander C Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, et al. Segment anything. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 4015–4026, 2023

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    A shortcut-aware video-qa benchmark for physical understanding via minimal video pairs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09987, 2025

    Benno Krojer, Mojtaba Komeili, Candace Ross, Quentin Garrido, Koustuv Sinha, Nicolas Ballas, and Mahmoud Assran. A shortcut-aware video-qa benchmark for physical understanding via minimal video pairs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09987, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    LLaVA-OneVision: Easy Visual Task Transfer

    Bo Li, Yuanhan Zhang, Dong Guo, Renrui Zhang, Feng Li, Hao Zhang, Kaichen Zhang, Peiyuan Zhang, Yanwei Li, Ziwei Liu, et al. Llava-onevision: Easy visual task transfer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03326, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Vidhalluc: Evaluating temporal hallucinations in multimodal large language models for video understanding

    Chaoyu Li, Eun Woo Im, and Pooyan Fazli. Vidhalluc: Evaluating temporal hallucinations in multimodal large language models for video understanding. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13723–13733, 2025

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Videochat: Chat-centric video understanding.Science China Information Sciences, 68(10):200102, 2025

    KunChang Li, Yinan He, Yi Wang, Yizhuo Li, Wenhai Wang, Ping Luo, Yali Wang, Limin Wang, and Yu Qiao. Videochat: Chat-centric video understanding.Science China Information Sciences, 68(10):200102, 2025

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Mvbench: A comprehensive multi-modal video understanding benchmark

    Kunchang Li, Yali Wang, Yinan He, Yizhuo Li, Yi Wang, Yi Liu, Zun Wang, Jilan Xu, Guo Chen, Ping Luo, et al. Mvbench: A comprehensive multi-modal video understanding benchmark. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 22195–22206, 2024

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Vitatecs: A diagnostic dataset for temporal concept understanding of video-language models

    Shicheng Li, Lei Li, Yi Liu, Shuhuai Ren, Yuanxin Liu, Rundong Gao, Xu Sun, and Lu Hou. Vitatecs: A diagnostic dataset for temporal concept understanding of video-language models. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 331–348. Springer, 2024

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Videochat-flash: Hierarchical compression for long-context video modeling,

    Xinhao Li, Yi Wang, Jiashuo Yu, Xiangyu Zeng, Yuhan Zhu, Haian Huang, Jianfei Gao, Kunchang Li, Yinan He, Chenting Wang, et al. Videochat-flash: Hierarchical compression for long-context video modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.00574, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Video-llava: Learning united visual representation by alignment before projection

    Bin Lin, Yang Ye, Bin Zhu, Jiaxi Cui, Munan Ning, Peng Jin, and Li Yuan. Video-llava: Learning united visual representation by alignment before projection. InProceedings of the 2024 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 5971–5984, 2024

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Tempcompass: Do video llms really understand videos? InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024, pages 8731–8772, 2024

    Yuanxin Liu, Shicheng Li, Yi Liu, Yuxiang Wang, Shuhuai Ren, Lei Li, Sishuo Chen, Xu Sun, and Lu Hou. Tempcompass: Do video llms really understand videos? InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024, pages 8731–8772, 2024

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Video-chatgpt: Towards detailed video understanding via large vision and language models

    Muhammad Maaz, Hanoona Rasheed, Salman Khan, and Fahad Khan. Video-chatgpt: Towards detailed video understanding via large vision and language models. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 12585–12602, 2024

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    Egoschema: A diagnostic benchmark for very long-form video language understanding.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:46212–46244, 2023

    Karttikeya Mangalam, Raiymbek Akshulakov, and Jitendra Malik. Egoschema: A diagnostic benchmark for very long-form video language understanding.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:46212–46244, 2023

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Kimi-K2.6 Model Card

    Moonshot AI. Kimi-K2.6 Model Card. https://huggingface.co/moonshotai/Kimi-K2. 6, 2026. Hugging Face model card. Accessed: 2026-05-02

    work page 2026

  30. [30]

    GPT-5.5 Model Documentation

    OpenAI. GPT-5.5 Model Documentation. https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/ models/gpt-5.5, 2026. Official API documentation. Accessed: 2026-05-02

    work page 2026

  31. [31]

    Perception test: A diagnostic benchmark for multimodal video models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:42748–42761, 2023

    Viorica Patraucean, Lucas Smaira, Ankush Gupta, Adria Recasens, Larisa Markeeva, Dylan Banarse, Skanda Koppula, Mateusz Malinowski, Yi Yang, Carl Doersch, et al. Perception test: A diagnostic benchmark for multimodal video models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:42748–42761, 2023. 11

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    Occluded video instance segmentation: A benchmark

    Jiyang Qi, Yan Gao, Yao Hu, Xinggang Wang, Xiaoyu Liu, Xiang Bai, Serge Belongie, Alan Yuille, Philip Torr, and Song Bai. Occluded video instance segmentation: A benchmark. International Journal of Computer Vision, 2022

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    SAM 2: Segment Anything in Images and Videos

    Nikhila Ravi, Valentin Gabeur, Yuan-Ting Hu, Ronghang Hu, Chaitanya Ryali, Tengyu Ma, Haitham Khedr, Roman Rädle, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Eric Mintun, Junting Pan, Kalyan Vasudev Alwala, Nicolas Carion, Chao-Yuan Wu, Ross Girshick, Piotr Dollár, and Christoph Feichtenhofer. Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00714, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    xgen-mm-vid (blip-3-video): You only need 32 tokens to represent a video even in vlms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.16267, 2024

    Michael S Ryoo, Honglu Zhou, Shrikant Kendre, Can Qin, Le Xue, Manli Shu, Jongwoo Park, Kanchana Ranasinghe, Silvio Savarese, Ran Xu, et al. xgen-mm-vid (blip-3-video): You only need 32 tokens to represent a video even in vlms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.16267, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Sigurdsson, Gül Varol, Xiaolong Wang, Ivan Laptev, Ali Farhadi, and Abhinav Gupta

    Gunnar A. Sigurdsson, Gül Varol, Xiaolong Wang, Ivan Laptev, Ali Farhadi, and Abhinav Gupta. Hollywood in homes: Crowdsourcing data collection for activity understanding.ArXiv e-prints, 2016

    work page 2016

  36. [36]

    Qwen2-VL: Enhancing Vision-Language Model's Perception of the World at Any Resolution

    Peng Wang, Shuai Bai, Sinan Tan, Shijie Wang, Zhihao Fan, Jinze Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, et al. Qwen2-vl: Enhancing vision-language model’s perception of the world at any resolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12191, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Lvbench: An extreme long video understanding benchmark

    Weihan Wang, Zehai He, Wenyi Hong, Yean Cheng, Xiaohan Zhang, Ji Qi, Ming Ding, Xiaotao Gu, Shiyu Huang, Bin Xu, et al. Lvbench: An extreme long video understanding benchmark. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 22958– 22967, 2025

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Internvideo2: Scaling foundation models for multimodal video understanding

    Yi Wang, Kunchang Li, Xinhao Li, Jiashuo Yu, Yinan He, Guo Chen, Baoqi Pei, Rongkun Zheng, Zun Wang, Yansong Shi, et al. Internvideo2: Scaling foundation models for multimodal video understanding. InEuropean conference on computer vision, pages 396–416. Springer, 2024

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    InternVideo2.5: Empowering video MLLMs with long and rich context modeling.arXiv:2501.12386, 2025

    Yi Wang, Xinhao Li, Ziang Yan, Yinan He, Jiashuo Yu, Xiangyu Zeng, Chenting Wang, Changlian Ma, Haian Huang, Jianfei Gao, et al. Internvideo2. 5: Empowering video mllms with long and rich context modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12386, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Videohallucer: Evaluating intrinsic and extrinsic hallucinations in large video-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16338, 2024

    Yuxuan Wang, Yueqian Wang, Dongyan Zhao, Cihang Xie, and Zilong Zheng. Videohallucer: Evaluating intrinsic and extrinsic hallucinations in large video-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16338, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    STAR: A Benchmark for Situ- ated Reasoning in Real-World Videos.arXiv e-prints, art

    Bo Wu, Shoubin Yu, Zhenfang Chen, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Chuang Gan. Star: A benchmark for situated reasoning in real-world videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.09711, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Longvideobench: A benchmark for long- context interleaved video-language understanding.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:28828–28857, 2024

    Haoning Wu, Dongxu Li, Bei Chen, and Junnan Li. Longvideobench: A benchmark for long- context interleaved video-language understanding.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:28828–28857, 2024

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    Grok 4.3

    xAI. Grok 4.3. https://docs.x.ai/developers/models/grok-4.3, 2026. Official model documentation. Accessed: 2026-05-02

    work page 2026

  44. [44]

    Next-qa: Next phase of question- answering to explaining temporal actions

    Junbin Xiao, Xindi Shang, Angela Yao, and Tat-Seng Chua. Next-qa: Next phase of question- answering to explaining temporal actions. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 9777–9786, June 2021

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    Xiaomi MiMo-V2-Omni

    Xiaomi. Xiaomi MiMo-V2-Omni. https://mimo.xiaomi.com/mimo-v2-omni, 2026. Of- ficial model page. Accessed: 2026-05-02

    work page 2026

  46. [46]

    Video question answering via gradually refined attention over appearance and motion

    Dejing Xu, Zhou Zhao, Jun Xiao, Fei Wu, Hanwang Zhang, Xiangnan He, and Yueting Zhuang. Video question answering via gradually refined attention over appearance and motion. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM international conference on Multimedia, pages 1645–1653, 2017

    work page 2017

  47. [47]

    Msr-vtt: A large video description dataset for bridging video and language

    Jun Xu, Tao Mei, Ting Yao, and Yong Rui. Msr-vtt: A large video description dataset for bridging video and language. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5288–5296, 2016. 12

    work page 2016

  48. [48]

    Rtv-bench: Benchmarking mllm continuous perception, understanding and reasoning through real-time video.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.02064, 2025

    Shuhang Xun, Sicheng Tao, Jungang Li, Yibo Shi, Zhixin Lin, Zhanhui Zhu, Yibo Yan, Hanqian Li, Linghao Zhang, Shikang Wang, et al. Rtv-bench: Benchmarking mllm continuous perception, understanding and reasoning through real-time video.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.02064, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Videochat-r1. 5: Visual test-time scaling to reinforce multimodal reasoning by iterative perception,

    Ziang Yan, Xinhao Li, Yinan He, Zhengrong Yue, Xiangyu Zeng, Yali Wang, Yu Qiao, Limin Wang, and Yi Wang. Videochat-r1. 5: Visual test-time scaling to reinforce multimodal reasoning by iterative perception.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.21100, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Track anything: Segment anything meets videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11968, 2023

    Jinyu Yang, Mingqi Gao, Zhe Li, Shang Gao, Fangjing Wang, and Feng Zheng. Track anything: Segment anything meets videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11968, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    MiniCPM-V: A GPT-4V Level MLLM on Your Phone

    Yuan Yao, Tianyu Yu, Ao Zhang, Chongyi Wang, Junbo Cui, Hongji Zhu, Tianchi Cai, Haoyu Li, Weilin Zhao, Zhihui He, et al. Minicpm-v: A gpt-4v level mllm on your phone.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.01800, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Activitynet-qa: A dataset for understanding complex web videos via question answering

    Zhou Yu, Dejing Xu, Jun Yu, Ting Yu, Zhou Zhao, Yueting Zhuang, and Dacheng Tao. Activitynet-qa: A dataset for understanding complex web videos via question answering. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 33, pages 9127–9134, 2019

    work page 2019

  53. [53]

    Tarsier2: Advanc- ing large vision-language models from detailed video description to comprehensive video understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.07888, 2025

    Liping Yuan, Jiawei Wang, Haomiao Sun, Yuchen Zhang, and Yuan Lin. Tarsier2: Advanc- ing large vision-language models from detailed video description to comprehensive video understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.07888, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Videorefer suite: Advancing spatial-temporal object understanding with video llm

    Yuqian Yuan, Hang Zhang, Wentong Li, Zesen Cheng, Boqiang Zhang, Long Li, Xin Li, Deli Zhao, Wenqiao Zhang, Yueting Zhuang, et al. Videorefer suite: Advancing spatial-temporal object understanding with video llm. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 18970–18980, 2025

    work page 2025

  55. [55]

    GLM-5V-Turbo

    Z.AI. GLM-5V-Turbo. https://docs.z.ai/guides/vlm/glm-5v-turbo, 2026. Official developer documentation. Accessed: 2026-05-02

    work page 2026

  56. [56]

    VideoLLaMA 3: Frontier Multimodal Foundation Models for Image and Video Understanding

    Boqiang Zhang, Kehan Li, Zesen Cheng, Zhiqiang Hu, Yuqian Yuan, Guanzheng Chen, Sicong Leng, Yuming Jiang, Hang Zhang, Xin Li, et al. Videollama 3: Frontier multimodal foundation models for image and video understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13106, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Llava-next: A strong zero-shot video understanding model, April 2024

    Yuanhan Zhang, Bo Li, haotian Liu, Yong jae Lee, Liangke Gui, Di Fu, Jiashi Feng, Ziwei Liu, and Chunyuan Li. Llava-next: A strong zero-shot video understanding model, April 2024

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    LLaVA-Video: Video Instruction Tuning With Synthetic Data

    Yuanhan Zhang, Jinming Wu, Wei Li, Bo Li, Zejun Ma, Ziwei Liu, and Chunyuan Li. Llava- video: Video instruction tuning with synthetic data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02713, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    InternVL3: Exploring Advanced Training and Test-Time Recipes for Open-Source Multimodal Models

    Jinguo Zhu, Weiyun Wang, Zhe Chen, Zhaoyang Liu, Shenglong Ye, Lixin Gu, Hao Tian, Yuchen Duan, Weijie Su, Jie Shao, et al. Internvl3: Exploring advanced training and test-time recipes for open-source multimodal models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10479, 2025. 13 Figure 7: The exact system prompt for VLM. A More Details about Event Detection A.1 Noun-Phrase ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025