The rapid progress of Large Language Models (LLMs) has spurred growing interest in Multi-modal LLMs (MLLMs) and motivated the development of benchmarks to evaluate their perceptual and comprehension abilities. Existing benchmarks, however, are limited to static images or single videos, overlooking the complex interactions across multiple videos. To address this gap, we introduce the Multi-Video Perception Evaluation Benchmark (MVPBench), a new benchmark featuring 14 subtasks across diverse visual domains designed to evaluate models on extracting relevant information from video sequences to make informed decisions. MVPBench includes 5K question-answering tests involving 2.7K video clips sourced from existing datasets and manually annotated clips. Extensive evaluations reveal that current models struggle to process multi-video inputs effectively, underscoring substantial limitations in their multi-video comprehension. We anticipate MVPBench will drive advancements in multi-video perception.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : Challenges in managing Multi-Video inputs. Previous benchmarks are primarily designed to address straightforward visual text problems, such as describing the content and associations of static images. While video description provides additional information to enhance the detail of content descriptions, it remains challenging to effectively manage comparisons between multiple related videos.
Fig. 2 : Design principles of MVPBench. A key feature of MVPBench is its ability to consider both the multiplicity of evaluation inputs and the temporal characteristics of evaluation videos.
Subdomain
Subtask
Source
Prompt
Temporal Segment
Tem w/
YouCook2 [ 11 ]
Sort these video clips according to the recipe’s textual description. Recipe Description:
Cap
step0: add water to a pan. step1: stir in the pack of sauce. step2: stir and cook until the soup boils
Splicing
Tem w/o
Manual
Sort the given video clips.
Cap
Collection
According to their content or logical sequence.
Content Assessment
Daily life
EPIC-Skills [ 12 ]
Your task is to compare these two clips.
action evaluation
Determine which one has better task and action completion.
TABLE I : Prompt examples of MVPBench.
Fig. 3 : Statistics of MVPBench. The benchmark includes 14 tasks in 5 domains, ranging from low-level pattern comparison to mid-level temporal logic reasoning, and extending to high-level visual content understanding.
Benchmarks
#Videos
#QA Pairs
Open.
Ego.
Com.
Multi.
Gen.
Data source
MVBench [ 9 ]
3,641
4,000
✓
✓
✓
✗
✗
existing datasets
Video-Bench [ 27 ]
5,917
17,036
✓
✗
✓
✗
✗
existing datasets
EgoSchema [ 24 ]
5,063
5,063
✗
✓
✗
✗
✗
ego-centric video
AutoEval-Video [ 28 ]
327
327
✓
✗
✗
✗
✗
Youtube
TempCompass [ 29 ]
410
7,540
✓
✗
✓
✗
✗
ShutterStock
Video-MME [ 10 ]
900
2,700
✓
✗
✓
✗
✗
Youtube
TABLE II : The comparison of various benchmarks: whether the benchmark incorporates videos sourced from diverse open domains (Open.), whether the benchmark incorporates egocentric videos(Ego.), whether the benchmark incorporates complex tasks spanning multiple hierarchical levels of perception(Com.), whether the benchmark incorporates multi-video comprehension category (Multi.) and whether the benchmark incorporates videos synthesized by the generative model(Gen.)
Fig. 4 : Task introduction of MVPBench . Zoom in for better view.
Model
Tem w/ Cap
Tem w/o Cap
Daily-Action
Pro-Action
Weather
Clarity
Brightness
Forensic
Human
95.16
80.01
80.96
85.72
83.34
90.00
95.71
97.00
Closed-source Multimodal LLMs
Gemini-2.5-Flash [ 33 ]
30.11
11.54
43.08
28.74
18.79
35.45
13.00
40.00
GPT-4o [ 30 ]
28.47
10.21
61.90
37.14
12.51
40.00
10.00
52.00
Open-source Multimodal LLMs
MiniCPM-V 4.5 [ 34 ]
4.23
-9.03
-9.52
-2.86
-15.37
-10.01
12.69
31.00
TABLE III : Results of different models on MVPBench. The best performance in each task is in-bold . Notably, the table presents normalized proficiency scores Smt for each model rather than observed accuracy Amt . Consequently, negative scores may occur, indicating model performance below random expectation levels for specific tasks. The ”Overall” metric denotes a weighted average across models, with weights proportional to the information gain potential of each respective task.
Baseline
Tem w/ Cap ↑
Tem w/o Cap ↑
Gait ↑
Cinematographic ↑
Olympic ↑
Dance ↑
Model
21.13%
28.30%
49.00%
68.00%
78.00%
46.25%
Random Expectation
10.56%
16.67%
33.33%
33.33%
50.00%
33.33%
TABLE IV : The result of first-option frequency evaluated on Qwen2.5-VL-72B and its random expectation. The numbers represent MLLM-Human Agreement. The model selects the first video option at a frequency 1.5–2 times the random expectation threshold, empirically validating the presence of Positional Bias in our experimental framework.
TABLE V : Ablation study across the single-video style benchmark experiments on all evaluation tasks. All experimental values represent the mean MLLM-Human Agreement scores [ 41 ] , averaged across models with native multi-video processing capabilities (Gemini-2.5-Flash, GPT-4o, and LLaVA-OneVision-Qwen2).
Subtask
Prompt example
Caption-guided temporal segment splicing
You are tasked with sorting video clips that correspond to steps in a recipe. Each video is numbered sequentially based on the order of input, such as 1, 2, 3, and so on. The videos are currently in a shuffled order, and your goal is to arrange them according to the correct sequence described in the recipe. The final output should be a sequence of numbers representing the correct order of the videos without any additional information. Here is the information provided: Video 1: <video>Video 2: <video>Video 3: <video> Recipe Description: Step 0: Put foil over the pan. Step 1: Put kalbi strips in the pan. Step 2: Put in the broiler. Please determine and provide the correct sequence of video numbers.
Caption-free temporal segment splicing
You are tasked with sorting video clips based on their content or logical sequence. Each video is numbered sequentially based on the order of input, such as 1, 2, 3, and so on. The videos are currently in a shuffled order, and your goal is to determine the correct order of these video clips. The final output should be a sequence of numbers representing the correct order of the videos without any additional information. Here are the video clips: Video 1: <video>Video 2: <video>Video 3: <video> Please determine and provide the correct sequence of video numbers.
Daily life action evaluation
Please watch the two video clips provided, labeled as Video 1 and Video 2. Each clip contains similar content and tasks being performed. Your task is to compare these clips and evaluate which one demonstrates better task and action completion. After reviewing both videos, select the number corresponding to the video that performed the task more effectively. Your response should be either the number 1 or 2, without any additional commentary or explanation. Here are the video clips: Video 1: <video>Video 2: <video>
Professional action evaluation
Please watch the two video clips provided, labeled as Video 1 and Video 2. Each clip contains similar content and tasks being performed. Your task is to compare these clips and evaluate which one demonstrates better task and action completion. After reviewing both videos, select the number corresponding to the video that performed the task more effectively. Your response should be either the number 1 or 2, without any additional commentary or explanation. Here are the video clips: Video 1: <video>Video 2: <video>
Weather condition evaluation
Please evaluate the three provided video clips, labeled as Video 1, Video 2, and Video 3. Each clip depicts the same type of weather, but with varying intensity levels: severe, moderate, and mild. Your task is to examine the weather conditions in each video to identify which one exhibits the most severe weather. After assessing the videos, provide a single digit corresponding to the video number that shows the most severe weather conditions. Your response should be concise, consisting solely of the digit without any additional commentary or explanation. Here are the video clips: Video 1: <video>Video 2: <video>Video 3: <video>
TABLE VI : Prompt examples of Temporal Segment Splicing tasks and Content Assessment tasks.
Subtask
Prompt example
Video clarity evaluation
Please evaluate the three provided video clips, labeled as Video 1, Video 2, and Video 3, focusing on their video quality, specifically in terms of clarity and smoothness. Your task is to rank these videos from highest to lowest quality based solely on these criteria. Indicate your ranking by listing only the corresponding numbers of each video in the order of quality, such as ”3, 2, 1” if Video 3 is the highest quality, followed by Video 2, and then Video 1. Ensure your response includes only the ranking numbers without any additional explanation or commentary. Here are the video clips: Video 1: <video>Video 2: <video>Video 3: <video>
Video brightness evaluation
Please analyze the brightness levels of the three provided video clips, labeled as Video 1, Video 2, and Video 3, each with distinct lighting and shooting conditions. Your task is to determine which video clip exhibits the lowest brightness and was filmed under the darkest conditions. After your assessment, provide your answer as a single digit representing the video number with the lowest brightness. Your response should be concise, consisting solely of the digit without any additional commentary or explanation. Here are the video clips: Video 1: <video>Video 2: <video>Video 3: <video>
Video forensic detection
Please evaluate the three provided video clips, labeled as Video 1, Video 2, and Video 3. Each clip contains similar content, but two are AI-generated, and one is authentic. Your task is to compare these videos and determine which one is real. After reviewing all three, respond with the number of the video you believe is genuine. Your response should be a single digit, representing the video number, without any additional commentary or explanation. Here are the video clips: Video 1: <video>Video 2: <video>Video 3: <video>
Multiview visual perception pairing
Please analyze the given reference video, Ref Video: <video> Compare it with the three candidate videos provided: Video 1: <video>Video 2: <video>Video 3: <video> The task is to identify the candidate video that corresponds to the reference video. The reference video is presented from a first-person perspective, while the correct candidate video is shown from a second-person perspective of the same scene. The other two candidate videos are considered distractors and do not match the reference video. Please examine each video closely and identify the candidate video that accurately matches the reference video. Provide your answer solely as a single digit that corresponds to the number of the correct candidate video, without any additional explanation or information.
Common sense judgment of physical laws
Please evaluate the three provided video clips, labeled as Video 1, Video 2, and Video 3. Among these clips, two contain elements that clearly violate natural physical laws, while one depicts a scenario consistent with typical physical principles. Your task is to identify the video that aligns with normal physical laws. After reviewing all three, respond with the number of the video indicating the number of the video that follows the laws of physics. Your response should be a single digit, representing the video number, without any additional commentary or explanation. Here are the video clips: Video 1: <video>Video 2: <video>Video 3: <video>
TABLE VII : Prompt examples of Video Quality Assessment tasks and Video Logic Inference tasks.
Subtask
Prompt example
Gait recognition matching
Please analyze the given reference video, Ref Video: <video> Compare it with the three candidate videos provided: Video 1: <video>Video 2: <video>Video 3: <video> The task is to identify which candidate video features the same individual as the reference video, based on their gait, which should be identical. The other two candidate videos are distractors, featuring different individuals with different gaits. Please examine each video closely and identify the candidate video that accurately matches the reference video. Provide your answer solely as a single digit that corresponds to the number of the correct candidate video, without any additional explanation or information.
Shooting style matching
Please analyze the given reference video, Ref Video: <video> Compare it with the three candidate videos provided: Video 1: <video>Video 2: <video>Video 3: <video> Your task is to identify which candidate video shares the same filming style as the reference video, focusing specifically on camera movement and video processing techniques. Among the three candidate videos, only one will match the reference video in these aspects, while the other two will not. Please examine each video closely and identify the candidate video that accurately matches the reference video. Provide your answer solely as a single digit that corresponds to the number of the correct candidate video, without any additional explanation or information.
Olympic sports matching
Please analyze the given reference video, Ref Video: <video> Compare it with the three candidate videos provided: Video 1: <video>Video 2: <video>Video 3: <video> Your task is to determine which of the candidate videos depicts the same sports activity as the reference video. Note that one candidate video matches the reference video while the others serves as a distractor. Please examine each video closely and identify the candidate video that accurately matches the reference video. Provide your answer solely as a single digit that corresponds to the number of the correct candidate video, without any additional explanation or information.
Dance style matching
Please analyze the given reference video, Ref Video: <video> Compare it with the three candidate videos provided: Video 1: <video>Video 2: <video>Video 3: <video> Your task is to determine which of the candidate videos features the same dance type as the reference video. Note that one candidate video matches the reference video while the others serves as a distractor. Please examine each video closely and identify the candidate video that accurately matches the reference video. Provide your answer solely as a single digit that corresponds to the number of the correct candidate video, without any additional explanation or information.
TABLE VIII : Prompt examples of Similar Video Pairing tasks.
Fig. 5 : More visualization of data in MVPBench. Examples of Temporal Segment Splicing tasks and Content Assessment tasks.
Fig. 6 : More visualization of data in MVPBench. Examples of Video Quality Assessment tasks and Video Logic Inference tasks.
Fig. 7 : More visualization of data in MVPBench. Examples of Similar Video Pairing tasks.
With the rapid advancement of video understanding, existing benchmarks are becoming increasingly saturated, exposing a critical discrepancy between inflated leaderboard scores and real-world model capabilities. To address this widening gap, we introduce Video-MME-v2, a comprehensive benchmark designed to rigorously evaluate the robustness and faithfulness of video understanding. To systematically evaluate model capabilities, we design a progressive tri-level hierarchy that incrementally increases the complexity of video comprehension, ranging from multi-point visual information aggregation, to temporal dynamics modeling, and ultimately to complex multimodal reasoning. Besides, in contrast to conventional per-question accuracy, we propose a group-based non-linear evaluation strategy that enforces both consistency across related queries and coherence in multi-step reasoning. It penalizes fragmented or guess-based correctness and assigns credit only to answers supported by valid reasoning. To guarantee data quality, Video-MME-v2 is constructed through a rigorously controlled human annotation pipeline, involving 12 annotators and 50 independent reviewers. Backed by 3,300 human-hours and up to 5 rounds of quality assurance, Video-MME-v2 aims to serve as one of the most authoritative video benchmarks. Extensive experiments reveal a substantial gap between current best model Gemini-3-Pro and human experts, and uncover a clear hierarchical bottleneck where errors in visual information aggregation and temporal modeling propagate to limit high-level reasoning. We further find that thinking-based reasoning is highly dependent on textual cues, improving performance with subtitles but sometimes degrading it in purely visual settings. By exposing these limitations, Video-MME-v2 establishes a demanding new testbed for the development of next-generation video MLLMs.
Multimodal Large Language Models have achieved strong performance in single-video understanding, yet their ability to reason across multiple videos remains limited. Existing approaches typically concatenate multiple videos into a single input and perform direct inference, which introduces training-inference mismatch, information loss from frame compression, and a lack of explicit cross-video coordination. Meanwhile, current multi-video benchmarks primarily emphasize event-level comparison, leaving identity-level matching, fine-grained discrimination, and structured multi-step reasoning underexplored. To address these gaps, we introduce MVX-Bench, a Multi-Video Cross-Dimension Benchmark that reformulates 11 classical computer vision tasks into a unified multi-video question-answering framework, comprising 1,442 questions over 4,255 videos from diverse real-world datasets. We further propose SAMA, a Skill-Augmented Agentic Framework for Multi-Video Understanding, which integrates visual tools, task-specific skills, and a conflict-aware verification mechanism to enable iterative and structured reasoning. Experimental results show that SAMA outperforms strong open-source baselines and GPT on MVX-Bench, and ablations validate the effectiveness of skill design and conflict resolution.
Comprehensive video understanding is crucial for advancing artificial intelligence toward the intricate dynamics of the physical world. While recent advances in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in video understanding, existing benchmarks remain confined to simple scene-level queries or global summaries that require only single-step inference. Real-world video understanding involves more challenging tasks that require multi-hop multimodal reasoning, and there is a critical absence of video benchmarks equipped to rigorously evaluate these agentic capabilities. To bridge this gap, we introduce AgentVidBench, a multi-hop video question answering benchmark focused on evaluating the spatial, temporal, and causal reasoning capabilities of MLLM agents. Beyond standard question-answer pairs, AgentVidBench provides step-by-step solution traces to support trajectory evaluation that assesses whether agents explicitly acquire the evidence needed to justify their answers. Experiments with 12 proprietary and open-source MLLMs show that single-turn performance remains limited on AgentVidBench, while integrating these models into state-of-the-art agentic workflows generally improves performance with respect to both accuracy and trajectory scores. We further present a simple yet effective agentic strategy that serves as a competitive baseline on AgentVidBench, establishing our benchmark as a holistic testbed for future research on agentic video understanding. Code and datasets are available at https://github.com/krafton-ai/agentvidbench and https://huggingface.co/datasets/agentvidbench/agentvidbench.