Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are typically trained in multiple stages, with video-based supervised fine-tuning (Video-SFT) serving as a key step for improving visual understanding. Yet its effect on the fine-grained evolution of visual capabilities, particularly the balance between spatial and temporal understanding, remains poorly understood. In this paper, we systematically study how Video-SFT reshapes visual capabilities in MLLMs. Across architectures, parameter scales, and frame sampling settings, we observe a consistent pattern: Video-SFT reliably improves video performance, but often yields limited gains or even degradation on static image benchmarks. We further show that this trade-off is closely tied to temporal budget: increasing the number of sampled frames generally improves video performance, but does not reliably improve static image performance. Motivated by this finding, we study an instruction-aware Hybrid-Frame strategy that adaptively allocates frame counts and partially mitigates the image-video trade-off. Our results indicate that Video-SFT is not a free lunch for MLLMs, and preserving spatial understanding remains a central challenge in joint image-video training.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the temporal trap and our study. (A) Illustration of the temporal trap : Video-SFT improves video performance but can weaken spatial capability on static images. (B) Image and video benchmarks used in our experiments. (C) Main study dimensions: architecture, scale, frame budget, and task. (D) Hybrid-Frame Strategy , which adaptively assigns a suitable frame budget to each training sample and partially mitigates the image–video trade-off.
Figure 3: Cross-scale attention visualizations before and after Video-SFT on Qwen2.5-VL models (7B, 32B, 72B). For the query “Is there a bird in the image?”, attention becomes more dispersed in smaller models after Video-SFT, while larger models retain more localized focus on the target object, suggesting improved robustness to the temporal trap.
Figure 4: Comparison of image and video benchmark performance before and after Video-SFT across different scale Qwen2.5-VL models, including 3B, 7B, 32B and 72B parameters.
Figure 5: Comparison of performance on image and video benchmarks before and after Video-SFT across 8/16/32/64 training frames on Qwen2.5-VL-7B model.
Setting
Image
Video
MMStar
POPE
Video-MME
Video-MMMU
Base
62.07
88.03
51.19
44.22
DINOv2-based
61.40 ↓
87.91 ↓
53.96 ↑
47.13 ↑
Qwen2.5-VL-3B-based
62.19 ↑
88.19 ↑
53.47 ↑
47.91 ↑
Qwen3-VL-8B-based
62.33 ↑
88.20 ↑
54.96 ↑
47.22 ↑
Table 1: Comparison of frame allocation strategies for Video-SFT on the Qwen2.5-VL-7B, training and inference using 8 frames.
Setting
Image
Video
MMStar
POPE
Video-MME
Video-MMMU
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
Video-SFT (8F)
61.67
87.82
54.41
47.56
Hybrid (8F)
62.33
88.20
54.96
47.22
Video-SFT (16F)
62.00
87.93
58.74
50.44
Hybrid (16F)
62.33
88.20
58.15
51.78
Table 2: Unified comparison of Video-SFT strategies across model architectures and frame budgets. For Qwen2.5-VL-7B, training and inference frame counts follow the settings in parentheses, while LLaVA-1.5-7B are evaluated with a fixed 8-frame inference.
Table A: Detailed breakdown of training data statistics. The dataset is categorized into three distinct tasks: Caption, Open-Ended, and Multiple-Choice. For each task, we specify the number of samples and the provenance of the source datasets used to construct the SFT corpus.
Figure A: Comparison of Qwen2.5-VL-7B model’s performance on MME, MMStar and MMBench before and after 8, 16, 32 and 64 frames of Video-SFT, where the number of input images is the same as the number of frames used in Video-SFT. ▼ indicates performance degradation after Video-SFT. Key Insight: (1) SFT models generally lag behind Base models for any given number of frame. (2) A greater number of redundant image inputs hurt visual performance for MLLMs, justifying our Hybrid-Frame Strategy .
Figure B: Performance impact of Video-SFT on Qwen2.5-VL-7B across Fine-Grained Perception, General Understanding, and Visual Reasoning tasks on MME, MMStar, and MMBench. Each column corresponds to a specific capability dimension in image understanding. ▼ indicates performance degradation after Video-SFT, while ▲ denotes improvement. The results reveal a non-uniform influence of Video-SFT across visual tasks, with Fine-Grained Perception exhibiting the most pronounced performance drop.
Task
Start Model
Training Frames
Eval Frames
Benchmark
Image
Video
Model Architecture
LLaVA-1.5-7B LLaVA-NeXT-Video-7B Qwen2.5-VL-7B
8
8
MME
Video-MME
MMStar
Video-MMMU
MMBench
MVBench
POPE
TempCompass
Model Size
Qwen2.5-VL-3B/7B/32B/72B
8
8
MME
Video-MME
Appendix
Table B: Experimental setup for assessing Video-SFT’s effect on the visual capability of MLLMs. We designed experiments from three aspects: model size, model architecture, and training frame count to explore the influence of Video-SFT on the visual capability of MLLMs.
Setting
Video-MME
Video-MMMU
MVBench
Inference with 8 Frames
Qwen2.5-VL-7B (Base)
51.19
44.22
62.68
+ Video-SFT-8F
54.41 (↑3.22)
47.56 (↑3.34)
64.62 (↑1.94)
+ Video-SFT-16F
54.52 (↑3.33)
48.11 (↑3.89)
63.05 (↑0.37)
+ Video-SFT-32F
55.67 (↑4.48)
47.44 (↑3.22)
63.17 (↑0.49)
+ Video-SFT-64F
55.26 (↑4.07)
47.44 (↑3.22)
63.05 (↑0.37)
Appendix
Table C: Performance comparison of Qwen2.5-VL-7B under different Video-SFT strategies across multiple frame settings (8, 16, 32, 64, and our Hybrid Strategy) on Video-MME, Video-MMMU, and MVBench. All models are evaluated using a fixed input of 8 frames. Numbers in ↑ indicate improvements relative to the base model.
Task Categories
Models
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
LLaVA-Next-Video-7B
LLaVA-1.5-7B
Base
SFT
Base
SFT
Base
SFT
Perception (Coarse-grained)
Existence
195.00
190.00 (↓5.00)
200.00
190.00 (↓10.00)
195.00
135.00 (↓60.00)
Count
165.00
170.00 (↑5.00)
135.00
153.33 (↑18.33)
148.33
105.00 (↓43.33)
Position
165.00
160.00 (↓5.00)
121.67
130.00 (↑8.33)
128.33
51.67 (↓76.66)
Appendix
Table D: Performance comparison of Qwen2.5-VL-7B, LLaVA-Next Video-7B and LLaVA-1.5-7B before and after Video-SFT in different tasks on the MME Benchmark. Numbers in ↑ indicate improvements, while numbers in ↓ indicate degradations relative to the base model.
Task Capabilities
Models
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
LLaVA-Next-Video-7B
LLaVA-1.5-7B
Base
SFT
Base
SFT
Base
SFT
Coarse Perception
Image Scene & Topic
63.83
60.99 (↓2.84)
51.77
48.23 (↓3.54)
49.65
32.62 (↓17.03)
Image Emotion
70.97
67.74 (↓3.23)
80.65
67.74 (↓12.91)
80.65
54.84 (↓25.81)
Image Style & Quality
88.46
87.18 (↓1.28)
69.23
75.64 (↑6.41)
69.23
38.46 (↓30.77)
Appendix
Table E: Performance comparison of Qwen2.5-VL-7B, LLaVA-Next Video-7B and LLaVA-1.5-7B before and after Video-SFT in different tasks on the MMStar Benchmark. Numbers in ↑ indicate improvements, while numbers in ↓ indicate degradations relative to the base model.
Task Categories
Models
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
LLaVA-Next-Video-7B
LLaVA-1.5-7B
Base
SFT
Base
SFT
Base
SFT
Coarse Perception
Image Scene
98.28
98.28
79.12
73.96 (↓5.16)
78.38
47.17 (↓31.21)
Image Emotion
83.00
84.50 (↑1.50)
54.50
70.00 (↑15.50)
74.00
43.50 (↓30.50)
Image Quality
58.67
62.67 (↑4.00)
36.67
40.67 (↑4.00)
37.33
34.67 (↓2.66)
Appendix
Table F: Performance comparison of Qwen2.5-VL-7B, LLaVA-Next Video-7B and LLaVA-1.5-7B before and after Video-SFT in different tasks on the MMBench Benchmark. Numbers in ↑ indicate improvements, while numbers in ↓ indicate degradations relative to the base model.
Figure C: The prompt used for Hybrid-Frame Strategy. It comprehensively evaluates aspects such as event duration, motion continuity, causality, object interaction, and fine-grained visual attributes, aiming to adaptively determine the optimal number of frames required to resolve each instruction.
Large-scale video platforms process millions of uploads hourly, requiring moderation systems that can localize when and where policy violations occur within each video. Processing every frame is infeasible at scale, so systems are constrained to sparse inputs of 8 to 16 frames per video. Yet state-of-the-art multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are pretrained on dense sequences of hundreds of frames, creating a fundamental mismatch between training and deployment conditions. This mismatch causes severe performance collapse: the Qwen3-VL 8B model drops from 56.0% to 22.3% temporal mIoU when frames are reduced to 16, a 60.2% relative degradation. We present a systematic empirical study of training strategies to close this gap for spatial-temporal video grounding. Our results suggest that visual feature extraction is the dominant bottleneck under sparse-frame inputs. Adapting only the final three ViT layers, 4% of total parameters, achieves 68.8% temporal mIoU and surpasses a zero-shot 8B model using dense inputs by 12.8 points. Language model fine-tuning, by contrast, offers negligible or negative returns. A boundary-aware sampling strategy, Hybrid16, further improves temporal mIoU by 26 points over uniform sampling when temporal boundaries are available. We conclude that for sparse-frame video grounding, training strategy dominates model scale: a fine-tuned 2B model consistently outperforms a zero-shot 8B model, with or without dense frame access.
Scaling Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to long-form video understanding is bottlenecked by the explosion of visual tokens, which saturates context windows and incurs prohibitive costs. Current solutions predominantly rely on auxiliary models for token reduction but face a fundamental dilemma: lightweight encoder-driven approaches often overlook critical semantic information, whereas heavyweight MLLM-driven reduction negates the efficiency gains. {In this work, we identify a more fundamental inefficiency underlying this dilemma: while fine-grained visual details are essential for detailed understanding, they are largely redundant for the preliminary task of selecting semantically relevant regions. } Motivated by this, we introduce VideoMM, which marks a paradigm shift from model-centric downsizing to adaptive perceptual granularity. Specifically, our framework {decouples selection from reasoning} by executing semantic filtering on a cost-effective Macro Proxy (derived from downscaled frames), and projecting the selected regions onto high-fidelity Micro Tokens for detailed understanding only when necessary. Extensive evaluations show that VideoMM significantly outperforms existing solutions. It achieves a 6.13× speedup and a 7.4% accuracy gain over full-context baselines on LongVideoBench, and further accelerates inference by 2.73× over current leading methods, establishing a highly scalable paradigm for long-video understanding. Our code is available at: https://github.com/adfh917k/VideoMM.
Haoyu Guo, Yuan Feng, Junlin Lv +3
School of Biomedical Engineering, University of Science and Technology of China · Data Darkness Lab, MIRACLE Center, Suzhou Institute for Advanced Research · China +1
Video multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have made rapid progress in general and long-form video understanding, yet their ability to capture and use brief, answer-critical visual evidence remains underexplored. Momentary actions or state transitions may determine an answer while occupying only a small fraction of the video. Performance on broad video understanding tasks alone does not establish whether models can reliably identify and use this temporally localized evidence. We introduce Moment-Video, a benchmark for evaluating temporal fidelity through momentary visual event understanding. Questions are constructed around visually observable events or event sequences, requiring models to notice, count, describe, or reason about transient evidence. The benchmark contains 1,000 human-verified video-QA pairs across seven domains and 25 subcategories, covering four tasks: Temporal Occurrence, Temporal Counting, Action Description, and Temporal Reasoning. We evaluate 34 proprietary and open-source MLLMs. Under the main evaluation settings, the best-performing model, Seed-2.0-Pro, achieves 39.6% overall accuracy, while most open-source models remain below 25%. Diagnostic analyses show that denser frame sampling improves some models, but substantial errors persist even when sampled frames cover all annotated necessary event intervals in an audited subset. Performance also declines on longer videos, suggesting additional temporal-localization challenges. By exposing these limitations, Moment-Video provides a diagnostic benchmark to guide the evaluation and development of video MLLMs that more reliably understand brief, answer-critical visual events.
Xiaolin Liu, Yilun Zhu, Xiangyu Zhao +9
Shandong University · Southeast University · Shanghai Jiao Tong University +1