LongVidSearch: An Agentic Benchmark for Multi-hop Evidence Retrieval Planning in Long Videos
Organizations: Peking University & Zhongguancun Academy Beijing, China
Abstract
Long video question answering (Long-Video QA) increasingly relies on agentic tool use to retrieve evidence from long videos. In realistic settings, this process often requires multi-hop retrieval, where agents must iteratively gather multiple discontinuous evidence clips. However, existing long-video benchmarks are largely static: they rarely enforce strict multi-hop retrieval and typically lack a standardized evidence-access interface, making it difficult to separate failures in retrieval planning from those in answer generation. To address this gap, we introduce LongVidSearch, a benchmark for evaluating agentic multi-hop evidence retrieval planning in long videos under standardized access constraints. LongVidSearch enforces retrieval necessity: a Hop-k question requires exactly k necessary evidence clips, and removing any single clip renders the question unsolvable. The benchmark contains 3,000 questions over 447 long videos (average length 26 minutes), covering four reasoning categories: State Mutation, Causal Inference, Global Summary, and Visual Tracking, with 2-hop, 3-hop, and 4-hop evidence requirements. To ensure fair and controlled evaluation, all agents interact with LongVidSearch through a unified tool interface, which fixes the retrieval backend and isolates the agent's ability to formulate queries and plan iterative retrieval. In addition to answer accuracy, we measure tool-call cost to analyze the accuracy-efficiency trade-off under identical access conditions. We evaluate VideoAgent-style QA agents with multiple backbone LLMs using three-judge majority voting. GPT-5 achieves the highest accuracy (42.43), outperforming Gemini 3 Pro (30.97) and GPT-4o (19.20), yet remaining below 50 %, highlighting the difficulty of multi-hop retrieval planning. With gold evidence clips, performance becomes near-perfect, confirming retrieval planning as the primary bottleneck.
Figures & tables
| Task Category | 2-Hop | 3-Hop | 4-Hop | Total (Ratio) |
| Causal Inference | 436 | 282 | 144 | 862 (28.7%) |
| Global Summary | 512 | 181 | 166 | 859 (28.6%) |
| Visual Tracking | 653 | 136 | 61 | 850 (28.3%) |
| State Mutation | 238 | 119 | 72 | 429 (14.3%) |
| Overall Count | 1,839 | 718 | 443 | 3,000 |
| Overall Percentage | 61.3% | 23.9% | 14.8% | 100.0% |
| Agent Backbone | Acc(All) | State_Mutation | Causal_Inference | Global_Summary | Visual_Tracking | ||||||||
| 2-hop | 3-hop | 4-hop | 2-hop | 3-hop | 4-hop | 2-hop | 3-hop | 4-hop | 2-hop | 3-hop | 4-hop | ||
| Close-Sourced LLMs | |||||||||||||
| GPT-5 | 42.43 | 38.24 | 36.13 | 22.22 | 47.71 | 43.97 | 39.58 | 44.34 | 35.36 | 29.52 | 49.77 | 37.50 | 29.51 |
| Gemini 3 Pro | 30.97 | 30.25 | 18.49 | 12.50 | 34.17 | 20.92 | 17.36 | 36.72 | 20.44 | 15.66 | 45.48 | 25.00 | 18.03 |
| GPT-4o | 19.20 | 15.55 | 14.29 | 12.50 | 20.18 | 12.77 | 11.81 | 19.73 | 13.81 | 11.45 | 29.40 | 20.59 | 11.48 |
| GPT-4-mini | 18.27 | 15.97 | 5.93 | 4.17 | 15.14 | 10.99 | 6.25 | 20.31 | 16.02 | 12.65 | 31.35 | 20.59 | 11.48 |
| Agent Backbone | Overall | 2-Hop | 3-Hop | 4-Hop |
| Closed-Sourced LLMs | ||||
| GPT-5 | 9.62 | 9.28 | 9.89 | 10.58 |
| Gemini 3 Pro | 7.37 | 7.30 | 7.39 | 7.58 |
| GPT-4o | 8.53 | 8.32 | 8.75 | 9.02 |
| GPT-4-mini | 6.43 | 6.38 | 6.46 | 6.58 |
| Open-Sourced LLMs | ||||
| Agent Backbone | Standard Acc (%) | Oracle Acc (%) | Gap ( ) |
| Closed-Sourced LLMs | |||
| GPT-5 | 42.43 | 100.00 | 57.57 |
| Gemini 3 Pro | 30.97 | 99.97 | 69.00 |
| GPT-4o | 19.20 | 99.40 | 80.20 |
| GPT-4-mini | 18.27 | 98.73 | 80.46 |
| Open-Sourced LLMs | |||
| Agent Backbone | Checked (N) | Disagree (k) | Disagree rate |
| Closed-Sourced LLMs | |||
| GPT-5 | 598 | 3 | 0.0050 |
| Gemini 3 Pro | 601 | 5 | 0.0083 |
| GPT-4o | 617 | 6 | 0.0097 |
| GPT-4-mini | 628 | 6 | 0.0096 |
| Open-Sourced LLMs | |||
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| 2-hop | Question: Which book is shown during her train ride and then later shown again when she reacts on the train? |
| Answer: The Vegetarian. | |
| Golden-Clip: [14, 25] | |
| Reasoning-Chain: Step 1: Slice 14 shows the book titled ‘The Vegetarian’ being read on transit. Step 2: Slice 25 shows her on a train with a red book and the text about gasping on the train . Conclusion: The repeated book is ‘The Vegetarian.’ | |
| Category: Visual_Tracking | |
| Hop-level: 2-Hop | |
| Visual_proof: In Clip 1, the text overlay explicitly states…… as she reacts to it. |
| Agent Backbone | State_Mutation | Causal_Inference | Global_Summary | Visual_Tracking | ||||||||
| 2-hop | 3-hop | 4-hop | 2-hop | 3-hop | 4-hop | 2-hop | 3-hop | 4-hop | 2-hop | 3-hop | 4-hop | |
| Close-Sourced LLMs | ||||||||||||
| GPT-5 | 9.26 | 9.69 | 10.13 | 9.40 | 10.02 | 11.02 | 9.17 | 9.56 | 10.50 | 9.29 | 10.27 | 10.23 |
| Gemini 3 Pro | 7.35 | 7.16 | 7.29 | 7.21 | 7.33 | 7.62 | 7.37 | 7.39 | 7.52 | 7.29 | 7.76 | 7.98 |
| GPT-4o | 8.41 | 8.70 | 8.81 | 8.44 | 8.83 | 8.99 | 8.11 | 8.60 | 9.22 | 8.37 | 8.82 | 8.82 |
| GPT-4-mini | 6.33 | 6.32 | 6.37 | 6.45 | 6.43 | 6.72 | 6.34 | 6.56 | 6.59 | 6.40 | 6.54 | 6.43 |
| Criterion | Score 1 (Correct) | Score 0 (Incorrect) |
| Answer correctness | All required entities/values are correct and unambiguous. | Any required detail is wrong/missing, or insufficient despite available evidence. |
| Hop-wise evidence | Satisfies all hop key points in the reasoning chain; supported by evidence clips. | Misses any hop key point, or uses unsupported speculation/hallucination. |
| Extra details | Extra details are allowed if they do not contradict evidence or change the answer. | Adds contradictory/fabricated details or changes the answer beyond evidence. |
AI Agent Benchmarks
AI agent benchmarks measure how reliably autonomous systems plan, use tools, interact, and complete tasks across controlled and real-world settings.
See all 1,494 papers