We introduce Video-HOCA, a diagnostic benchmark for physical anomaly reasoning in videos. Video-HOCA uses an Ontological-Causal taxonomy to distinguish violations of an entity's own properties or capabilities from violations of physical relations among entities and the environment. It contains more than 1,400 generated and real-world videos and 3,470 question-answer pairs, with human verification of labels and reference answers. The benchmark evaluates four levels of reasoning: plausibility checking, anomaly attribution, fine-grained recognition, and open-ended physical explanation. Across 20 Instruct-mode Video-LLMs, we find that recognition outpaces explanation: Task I scores cluster at 75-88, while Task II macro-F1 stays mostly below 50. We also find that the Ontological-Causal gap depends on the task and model configuration, and that Thinking-mode gains are not explained by sampling or output budget alone. Annotation agreement, Task-IV human-judge and judge-judge checks, alternative metrics, and temporal/decoding controls validate the evaluation pipeline and bound the claims supported by the benchmark.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Video-HOCA overview. The benchmark organizes physical anomalies into Ontological (entity-centered) and Causal (relation-centered) branches, totaling 9 L2 groups and 18 L3 tags (full hierarchy in Appendix Table 4 ); spatial and temporal cases span both generated anomaly videos and semantically matched real videos. The four main tasks move from plausibility checking to category attribution, fine-grained anomaly recognition, and open-ended physical explanation.
Figure 2: Construction pipeline. We use both text-source candidates, where existing benchmarks provide videos with textual annotations, and video-source candidates, where raw generated clips require frame-wise captioning, anomaly summarization, operational taxonomy attribution, schema checking, and human review. Real-world clips are filtered and semantically matched to anomaly clips so that Task I compares physically plausible and implausible videos under similar scene content.
Figure 3: Structured task design in Video-HOCA. The benchmark evaluates physical anomaly reasoning through four progressive tasks: (Task I) Plausibility Check, (Task II) Anomaly Category Attribution, (Task III) Fine-grained Anomaly Recognition, and (Task IV) Open-ended Physical Reasoning. The sequence probes model capability from coarse plausibility detection to fine-grained recognition and mechanism-level explanation.
Figure 4: Task-IV failure modes on a coffee-level anomaly. All models observe the same video, where coffee is continuously dispensed but the liquid level does not rise. Green marks the correct conservation-based mechanism, red marks wrong or misleading mechanisms, and yellow marks partially correct but imprecise event descriptions. The example shows that models may recognize visible activity while missing or misattributing the physical mechanism.
Model
Task I
Task II
Task III
Task IV
Task IV (D)
Overall
ACC
F1
Onto.
Caus.
Onto.
Caus.
Onto.
Caus.
Onto.
Caus.
Human
–
–
–
–
96.0
81.4
84.9
–
Open-weight dense models ( < 7B)
InternVL-3.5-2B
61.7
69.6
25.0
49.6
70.4
55.6
40.9
47.1
39.7
44.6
43.3
Qwen3-VL-2B
71.7
75.0
34.9
46.6
73.1
67.8
50.2
51.0
44.6
44.6
48.0
Open-weight dense models ( ≥ 7B)
Table 1: Main Instruct-mode evaluation results on Video-HOCA. Task I reports binary-plausibility ACC/F1 (%); Task II and Task III report macro-F1 (%) on Ontological–Causal subsets; Task IV reports rubric-based judge scores (0–100) decomposed into Ontological–Causal dimensions. Task IV (D) uses DeepSeek-V4-Flash as the judge. “Overall” first standardizes each main task score with z-scores computed over the main-table models, averages the four standardized scores, and linearly rescales the result as 50+10z for readability. Bold indicates the best model result in each column, and underlining indicates the second best; the Human row is excluded from this marking. All rows use deterministic Instruct-mode decoding; Thinking-mode results are analyzed separately in § 4.4 .
Branch
Temporal type
Videos
Task III
Task IV
Ontological
Static
130
71.2
63.9
Dynamic
124
68.7
63.6
Causal
Static
128
69.4
60.3
Dynamic
248
59.9
53.0
Static gap (Onto. – Caus.)
–
–
+1.8
+3.6
Table 2: Static/dynamic analysis by anomaly branch. Scores are averaged over the main model set. Static Causal cases remain below Static Ontological cases, so the Ontological–Causal gap is not reducible to temporal demand alone.
Model
Setting
Task I
Task II
Task III
Task IV
Diag. Overall
ACC
F1
Onto.
Caus.
Onto.
Caus.
Onto.
Caus.
GLM-4.6V-106B-FP8
Instruct
69.8
76.2
31.5
21.9
24.9
18.0
71.0
58.9
41.8
GLM-4.6V-106B-FP8
Instruct-Align
68.4
75.1
36.2
36.9
32.5
26.8
73.6
60.7
44.6
GLM-4.6V-106B-FP8
Thinking
68.5
75.7
45.7
59.8
78.9
72.6
78.3
62.0
54.2
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B-FP8
Instruct
88.0
87.5
45.0
41.0
85.9
79.2
73.1
61.4
57.6
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B-FP8
Instruct-Align
86.7
87.7
44.6
35.4
88.6
80.3
68.0
61.5
56.9
Table 3: Comparison of Instruct, Instruct-Align, and native Thinking decoding on Video-HOCA. Task I reports ACC/F1 (%); Task II and Task III report Ontological–Causal macro-F1 (%); Task IV reports rubric-based Ontological–Causal judge scores (0–100). Diag. Overall uses the same fixed main-table z-score normalization as Table 1 ; bold marks the best setting within each model block.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: Video-HOCA annotation interface. The browser-based review tool used by annotators. It pairs a video player with editable fields for taxonomy type, category, sub-category, scene description, anomaly phenomenon, principle/expectation, and an optional temporal-localization range. The right panel tracks per-category dataset progress.
Figure 6: Taxonomy distribution. The sunburst chart visualizes the Ontological–Causal branches and their fine-grained L2 categories.
Figure 7: Video-source distribution. The generative sources used for Video-HOCA anomaly clips, supporting the source-diversity statistics reported in the main text.
Figure 8: Temporal annotation example. Annotated time intervals for the temporal-grounding probe. The probe localizes when anomalous events occur and is auxiliary to the main Ontological–Causal claims.
Surface appearance inconsistent with entity identity.
Turtle with a ruby-like shell; transparent wood.
State
Object Permanence
Spontaneous appearance or disappearance of the whole entity.
Chair appears out of thin air.
Morphing
Shape or size changes without external cause.
Paper grows longer by itself.
Appendix
Table 4: Full Video-HOCA taxonomy. L1 is the Ontological–Causal split; L2 is the 9 anomaly groups; L3 lists the fine-grained tags actually used as labels. For the four L2 groups with no further subdivision (Bio-Behavior, Mass and Volume Consistency, Thermodynamics, Chemistry, Optics), the L3 tag is identical to the L2 name. Canonical examples are selected to have a stable primary violated unit.
Model
Temporal setting
Frames
Task I
Task II
Task III
Task IV
ACC
F1
Onto.
Caus.
Onto.
Caus.
Onto.
Caus.
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B-FP8
Original order
16f
88.0
87.5
45.0
41.0
85.9
79.2
73.1
61.4
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B-FP8
Middle frame
1f
80.6
82.0
39.5
40.2
77.9
70.7
58.0
59.0
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B-FP8
Shuffled order
16f
87.9
87.2
44.4
36.8
81.8
75.5
68.5
59.0
Appendix
Table 6: Temporal frame-order ablation on Video-HOCA. The experiment compares the original 16-frame input, a single middle-frame input, and a shuffled 16-frame input. Task I reports ACC/F1 (%); Task II and Task III report Ontological–Causal scores (%); Task IV reports rubric-based Ontological–Causal judge scores (0–100). Bold marks the best temporal setting in each column.
Model
Subset
Videos
Task I
Task II
Task III
Task IV
Labeled videos: Static=258, Dynamic=372
Open-weight dense models ( < 7B)
InternVL-3.5-2B
Static
258
48.1
41.1
65.5
49.9
Dynamic
372
27.2
39.8
57.0
41.4
Qwen3-VL-2B
Static
258
70.9
52.7
76.7
56.1
Dynamic
372
49.7
37.4
65.1
47.0
Appendix
Table 7: Static vs. dynamic subset analysis on Video-HOCA. The subset labels come from static_dynamic_labels.jsonl . Only labeled anomaly videos are included, so Task I is reported as subset accuracy rather than F1. Task II/III report exact-match accuracy (%), and Task IV reports the rubric-based judge score (0–100).
Model
GPT-OSS z-score
DeepSeek z-score
GPT-OSS weighted
DeepSeek weighted
Qwen3.5-27B
61.2 (1)
61.3 (1) ⋅
74.4 (1) ⋅
73.4 (1) ⋅
Gemini-3-Flash
60.2 (2)
60.6 (2) ⋅
73.5 (2) ⋅
73.3 (2) ⋅
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B-FP8
57.6 (3)
57.5 (3) ⋅
68.9 (5) ↓ 2
67.6 (5) ↓ 2
Qwen3-VL-32B
57.4 (4)
57.4 (4) ⋅
70.7 (3) ↑ 1
69.4 (3) ↑ 1
Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B
55.6 (5)
55.2 (6) ↓ 1
68.7 (6) ↓ 1
66.5 (6) ↓ 1
Gemini-2.5-Flash
55.1 (6)
55.7 (5) ↑ 1
69.0 (4) ↑ 2
69.3 (4) ↑ 2
Appendix
Table 8: Ranking robustness under alternative Task IV judges and aggregation rules. Each cell reports score (rank); arrows show rank changes relative to the GPT-OSS z-score setting. The z-score variants standardize Task I F1, count-weighted Task II/III macro-F1, and the selected Task IV judge score over the same main-table models. The weighted variants use raw scores with weights 0.2/0.2/0.2/0.4 for Tasks I–IV.
Embodied intelligence and world models require video understanding systems to go beyond recognizing objects and actions and develop an understanding of physical regularities. However, despite their strong performance on general video understanding tasks, current video-language models still struggle to reliably determine whether an observed event conforms to specific physical laws. Existing benchmarks primarily assess the physical quality of generated videos, providing limited support for systematically evaluating and improving the physical-law understanding of Video Large Language Models (VideoLLMs). To address this gap, we introduce PhyCheck, a video question answering dataset organized at two complementary levels of granularity. The coarse-grained subset asks models to determine whether the phenomenon shown in a video conforms to or violates physical laws, while the fine-grained subset further examines whether models can capture physical details responsible for the violation or compliance. We use these subsets as structured supervision to improve physical understanding. In addition, the dataset contains a diagnostic subset with external causal context that reveal hidden factors affecting physical plausibility, assessing whether models can recalibrate their judgments accordingly. Experiments with Fine-tune Qwen2.5-VL show that training with the proposed data substantially improves the understanding of physical-consistency, while evaluations in the diagnostic subset reveal that current models still have difficulty incorporating additional causal conditions into their decisions. These findings highlight the gap between recognizing surface-level inconsistencies and understanding underlying physical mechanisms, and provide a foundation for evaluating and improving physical understanding in Video-LLMs.
Zhongjie Ba, Shengwang Xu, Peng Cheng +4
State Key Lab. of Blockchain and Data Security, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China · Hangzhou High-Tech Zone (Binjiang) Institute of Blockchain and Data Security Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China · Mohamed Bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
While Video Large Language Models (Video-LLMs) excel in general understanding, they exhibit systematic deficits in fine-grained physical reasoning. Existing interventions not only suffer from limited generalization but fundamentally conflate generative artifacts with genuine physical fallacies. Furthermore, we find that models fail systematically not only in anti-physics anomalies but also in counter-intuitive scenarios where visual facts contradict statistical expectations. Accordingly, we propose the Unified Attribution Theory: this dual failure stems not from perception deficiency, but from Semantic Prior Dominance -- the reasoning mechanism is deeply hijacked by internal narrative scripts. To address this, we construct the Programmatic Adversarial Curriculum (PACC), the first high-fidelity adversarial video dataset synthesized based on physical laws, thoroughly decoupling visual artifacts from logical errors. Concurrently, we design the Visual-Anchored Reasoning Chain (VARC) to force models to explicitly ground their judgments in low-level visual facts prior to logical adjudication. Experiments demonstrate that without invasive architectural modifications, standard LoRA fine-tuning with the PACC curriculum effectively neutralizes prior interference in state-of-the-art (SOTA) models, yielding a substantial leap in physical reasoning capabilities.
The inherent complexity of video understanding makes it difficult to determine whether Video-LLM benchmark performance stems from visual perception, linguistic reasoning, or knowledge priors. While many benchmarks have emerged to assess high-level reasoning, shared criteria for evaluating video understanding remain largely overlooked. Instead of introducing yet another benchmark, we take a step back to re-examine the criteria for evaluating video understanding. In this work, we introduce Video-Oasis, a sustainable diagnostic suite for systematically auditing existing video understanding benchmarks. This audit reveals that 55% of existing benchmark samples are solvable without visual input or temporal context. After filtering these shortcuts, the remaining video-native challenges expose a substantial capability gap: state-of-the-art models perform only marginally above random guessing. Building on these findings, we use the distilled challenges as a testbed to investigate which algorithmic design choices contribute to robust video understanding. We hope our work provides a practical foundation for constructing rigorous video benchmarks and evaluating future Video-LLMs. Code is available at https://github.com/sejong-rcv/Video-Oasis.
Geuntaek Lim, Sungjune Park, Jaeyun Lee +5
Sejong University, South Korea · NAVER Cloud, South Korea