Multimodal LLMs are increasingly deployed as perceptual backbones for autonomous agents in 3D environments, from robotics to virtual worlds. These applications require agents to perceive rapid state changes, attribute actions to the correct entities, and reason about concurrent multi-agent behaviors from a first-person perspective, capabilities that existing benchmarks do not adequately evaluate. We introduce GameplayQA, a framework for evaluating agentic-centric perception and reasoning through video understanding. Specifically, we densely annotate multiplayer 3D gameplay videos at 1.22 labels/second, with time-synced, concurrent captions of states, actions, and events structured around a triadic system of Self, Other Agents, and the World, a natural decomposition for multi-agent environments. From these annotations, we refined 2.4K diagnostic QA pairs organized into three levels of cognitive complexity, accompanied by a structured distractor taxonomy that enables fine-grained analysis of where models hallucinate. Evaluation of frontier MLLMs reveals a substantial gap from human performance, with common failures in temporal and cross-video grounding, agent-role attribution, and handling the decision density of the game. We hope GameplayQA stimulates future research at the intersection of embodied AI, agentic perception, and world modeling.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Question taxonomy of GameplayQA . Questions are organized along two axes: Entity (Self, Other, World) and Temporal Nature (Action/State for agents, Object/Event for world), yielding six primitive label types. These primitives compose into 15 task categories across three cognitive levels: single-reference perception (L1), temporal reasoning (L2), and cross-video understanding (L3). See Sec. 3.1 and Table 2 for details.
Figure 2: Overview of GameplayQA . Gameplay videos undergo (1) dense multi-track temporal captioning on 6 types of target entities (Sec. 3.2 ), (2) captioning includes negative labels for hallucination-inducing distractors, and (3) QA pairs are generated through a combinatorial template-based algorithm (Sec. 3.3 ). After (4) quality assurance (Sec. 3.4 ), the benchmark enables (5) model evaluation with (6) fine-grained hallucination analysis (Sec. 4.2 ).
Figure 3: Example questions from GameplayQA across different question codes and cognitive levels. Each example shows video frames paired with the corresponding QA pair, illustrating the progression from basic perception (L1) to temporal reasoning (L2) to cross-video understanding (L3). Additional cross-domain examples from car collision and egocentric human activity videos demonstrate the generalizability of the framework.
Benchmark
Domain
Agent-Centric
Multi-POV
Diagnostic
Annotation
#Q
#Vid
MVBench Li et al. (2024a)
General
✗
✗
✓
Auto
4,000
4,000
LongVideoBench Wu et al. (2024)
General
✗
✗
✓
Human
6,678
3,763
MVU-Eval Peng et al. (2025)
General
✗
✓
✗
Human, Auto
1,824
4,959
MovieQA Tapaswi et al. (2016)
Movie
✗
✗
✗
Human
15k
408
TVQA Lei et al. (2018)
TV Shows
✗
✗
✗
Human
152k
21.8k
MarioQA Mun et al. (2017)
Gameplay
✓
✗
✗
Auto
188k
13 hrs
Table 1: Comparison of relevant video understanding benchmarks.
Context Scope
Task
Description
Example Question Codes
#Q
Dur.
Single Reference (L1, 469)
Action Recognition
Identify or verify existence of self & others’ actions
SA-IDENT , OA-EXIST , …
162
10.0s
State Recognition
Identify or verify existence of self & others’ states
SS-IDENT , OS-EXIST , …
147
10.1s
Object Recognition
Identify or verify existence of world objects in scene
WO-IDENT , WO-EXIST
70
9.3s
Event Recognition
Identify world events occurring in the environment
WE-IDENT
61
8.4s
Static Object Count
Count static objects present in the scene
WO-COUNT
29
21.3s
Temporal (L2, 1383)
Cross-Entity Referring
Link one entity to another (X2Y reasoning)
SA2SS-IDENT , WO2SS-EXIST , …
423
23.0s
Table 2: Definition of 15 categories of cross-entity referring reasoning questions in GameplayQA , including the number of questions and average video duration.
Table 4: Model performance by entity category. Gold = best, Silver = second best. SA: Self-Action, SS: Self-State, OA: Other-Action, OS: Other-State, WO: World-Object, WE: World-Event.
Figure 4: Error rate analysis across four dimensions. Top-left : Cross-video and temporal distractors cause the most errors. Top-right : Fast-paced shooters (CS2, Battlefield) are hardest. Bottom-left : Error increases with video length. Bottom-right : Error scales with number of synchronized videos.
Condition
All
L1
L2
L3
Baseline (Full)
62.7
67.2
61.9
60.6
No Video
29.4
36.0
29.1
24.2
Random Frame
41.7
52.9
40.9
33.7
Shuffled Frames
54.8
63.1
52.6
53.4
Table 5: Ablation study on GPT- 5 -mini with degraded visual inputs. Performance drops indicate the contribution of video content and temporal ordering.
Model
All
L1 (Single Ref.)
L2 (Temporal)
L3 (Cross-Video)
ActRec
StaRec
ObjRec
EvtRec
X-Ent
TsRef
TimLoc
AbsRec
OccCnt
Order
Intent
SyncRef
X-VOrd
POV-ID
Gemini 2.5 Pro
66.2
61.1
86.7
83.3
100.0
62.0
80.0
52.6
72.2
40.0
50.0
66.7
76.7
25.0
55.6
Gemini 2.5 Flash
62.0
72.2
73.3
66.7
80.0
64.0
80.0
36.8
61.1
40.0
83.3
55.6
70.0
50.0
38.9
GPT-5 Mini
61.0
55.6
66.7
100.0
80.0
66.0
70.0
63.2
77.8
20.0
66.7
66.7
53.3
50.0
27.8
Qwen3 VL 235B
59.2
50.0
73.3
100.0
100.0
66.0
80.0
36.8
72.2
20.0
50.0
66.7
50.0
25.0
44.4
Table 6: Cross-domain generalization results on real-world ego-centric videos (autonomous driving + multi-human collaboration, 213 questions). Gold = best, Silver = second best. Column headers follow the same conventions as Table 3 .
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: Illustration of the Self–Other–World framework. A first-person player (Self) perceives a teammate (Other) issuing a warning, set against the surrounding game environment (World). These three perspectives define the entity types used in our question taxonomy.
Dimension
Category
Description
Example Question
Number of Videos
Single Video
Inputs a single video
What action did the player perform?
Multi-Video
Inputs multiple videos
When POV1 player was reloading, which action did POV2 player perform?
Context Target
Summative
(Single-Video Only) Requires aggregation over a temporal segment.
Which of the following best summarizes the player’s actions during the video?
Timestamp Referring
Refers to a specific moment or interval
At [02:45 - 02:52], what action did the player perform?
Target Entity Referring
Refers to the temporal moment of the 6 entity types.
When the player was reloading, what action did the teammate perform?
Cross-Video Referring
(Multi-Video Only) Explicitly references a video index.
Which POV player reload their weapon?
Appendix
Table 7: GameplayQA question taxonomy. Each question is defined by a combination of dimensions, enabling systematic coverage of perception, temporal reasoning, and cross-video reasoning.
Model Name
Version
Inference Provider
Platform
GPT- 5
gpt-5
OpenAI
OpenAI
GPT- 5 -mini
gpt-5-mini
OpenAI
OpenAI
GPT- 5 -nano
gpt-5-nano
OpenAI
OpenAI
Gemini- 2.5 -Pro
gemini-2.5-pro
Google
Google AI Studio
Gemini- 3 -Flash
gemini-3-flash
Google
Google AI Studio
Gemini- 2.5 -Flash
gemini-2.5-flash
Google
Google AI Studio
Appendix
Table 8: Inference configurations for tested models. All models are evaluated using the listed inference providers.
Label Type
Count
Share
Self-Action (SA)
658
24.3%
Self-State (SS)
729
26.9%
Other-Action (OA)
160
5.9%
Other-State (OS)
190
7.0%
World-Event (WE)
417
15.4%
World-Object (WO)
555
20.5%
Appendix
Table 10: Per-type label distribution ( ρ≈1.22 labels/s over 2,219.41 s of annotated footage).
Figure 6: Top left: Distribution of the first four words of the questions. The arc length indicates the frequency. Top right: Distribution of question codes, categorized by count and task type (using color for cognitive level). Bottom: Word cloud visualizing question terms by entity type.
Game
Expert
Regular
Casual
Low
None
(>300h)
(>30h)
(>5h)
(>0h)
Counter-Strike
1
1
2
1
0
Minecraft
1
1
3
0
0
Apex Legends
0
2
0
3
0
Battlefield 6
0
2
0
3
0
Arc Raiders
0
1
0
4
0
Appendix
Table 11: Annotator familiarity with each game. Values indicate the number of annotators (out of 5) at each familiarity level. Hours denote minimum play time.
Figure 7: Screenshot of the annotation interface in the single-video setting, shown for the game Valheim . Annotators label actions, states, events, and entities on a synchronized timeline.
Figure 8: Screenshot of the annotation interface in the multi-video setting, shown for the game Arc Raiders . Three synchronized video perspectives are displayed in parallel, with aligned timelines enabling annotators to capture cross-video events and temporal relations. The same explosion in the sky is captured by all three videos.
Form
Entity
Code
Template
IDENT
SA
SA-IDENT
Which of the following actions did the POV player perform during the video?
SS
SS-IDENT
Which of the following best describes the POV player’s state in the video?
OA
OA-IDENT
Which of the following actions did {other} perform during the video?
OS
OS-IDENT
Which of the following best describes {other} ’s state in the video?
WO
WO-IDENT
Which of the following objects appeared in the video?
WE
WE-IDENT
Which of the following event occurred in the video?
Appendix
Table 12: Level 1 (perception) question templates. Entity types: SA (Self-Action), SS (Self-State), OA (Other-Action), OS (Other-State), WO (World-Object), WE (World-Event).
Form
Ref → Ans
Code
Template
IDENT
SA → SS
SA2SS-IDENT
When the POV player was performing the action: “ {refCaption} ”, which of the following best describes their state?
SA → OA
SA2OA-IDENT
When the POV player was performing the action: “ {refCaption} ”, which of the following actions did {other} perform?
SS → SA
SS2SA-IDENT
When the POV player’s “ {refCaption} ”, which of the following actions did they perform?
OA → SS
OA2SS-IDENT
When {other} was performing the action: “ {refCaption} ”, which of the following best describes the POV player’s state?
WO → SA
WO2SA-IDENT
At the moment when the object “ {refCaption} ” appeared, which of the following actions did the POV player perform?
WE → OA
WE2OA-IDENT
At the moment when the event “ {refCaption} ” occurred, which of the following actions did {other} perform?
Appendix
Table 13: Level 2 entity-reference question templates (representative examples; full set covers all 30 Ref → Ans pairs across SA, SS, OA, OS, WO, WE). Code format: {Ref}2{Ans}-{Form} . Each EXIST question is further instantiated with distractor subtypes: True , Lexical , Scene , Temporal , and Role .
Form
Ans
Code
Template
IDENT
SA
TR2SA-IDENT
During {timestamp} , which of the following actions did the POV player perform?
SS
TR2SS-IDENT
During {timestamp} , which of the following best describes the POV player’s state?
OA
TR2OA-IDENT
During {timestamp} , which of the following actions did {other} perform?
OS
TR2OS-IDENT
During {timestamp} , which of the following best describes {other} ’s state?
WO
TR2WO-IDENT
During {timestamp} , which of the following objects appeared?
WE
TR2WE-IDENT
During {timestamp} , which of the following events occurred?
Appendix
Table 14: Level 2 timestamp-reference (TR) question templates. The placeholder {timestamp} is replaced by a formatted time range such as [00:01 to 00:12] . Code format: TR2{Ans}-{Form} .
Type
Ref → Ans
Code
Template
Cross-Video Reference (V1- { Ref } 2V2- { Ans } - { Form } )
IDENT
SA → SA
V1-SA2V2-SA-IDENT
When POV1 player was performing the action: “ {refCaption} ”, which of the following actions did POV2 player perform at the same time?
SA → SS
V1-SA2V2-SS-IDENT
When POV1 player was performing the action: “ {refCaption} ”, which of the following best describes POV2 player’s state at the same time?
OA → SA
V1-OA2V2-SA-IDENT
When {refOther} was performing the action: “ {refCaption} ” in POV1, which of the following actions did POV2 player perform at the same time?
WE → WO
V1-WE2V2-WO-IDENT
At the moment when the event “ {refCaption} ” occurred in POV1, which of the following objects appeared in POV2 at the same time?
EXIST
SA → SA
V1-SA2V2-SA-EXIST
When POV1 player was performing the action: “ {refCaption} ”, did POV2 player perform the action: “ {caption} ” at the same time?
Appendix
Table 15: Level 3 (cross-video) question templates. Cross-video reference templates cover all 36 Ref → Ans pairs (6 reference types × 6 answer types) in both IDENT and EXIST forms; representative examples are shown. V1 / V2 are replaced by actual video indices at generation time. {refOther} refers to the other player in the reference video. POV-ID answer options are video numbers; ORDER options are formatted as “The POV player in Video X is [action]”.
Towards an embodied generalist for real-world interaction, Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM) agents still suffer from challenging latency, sparse feedback, and irreversible mistakes. Video games offer an ideal testbed with rich visual observations and closed-loop interaction, demanding fine-grained perception, long-horizon planning, and precise control. However, systematically evaluating these capabilities is currently hindered by heterogeneous action interfaces and heuristic verification. To this end, we introduce GameWorld, a benchmark designed for standardized and verifiable evaluation of MLLMs as generalist game agents in browser environments. Two game agent interfaces are studied: (i) computer-use agents that directly emit keyboard and mouse controls, and (ii) generalist multimodal agents that act in a semantic action space via deterministic Semantic Action Parsing. GameWorld contains 34 diverse games and 170 tasks, each paired with state-verifiable metrics for outcome-based evaluation. The results across 18 model-interface pairs suggest that even the best performing agent is far from achieving human capabilities on video games. Extensive experiments of repeated full-benchmark reruns demonstrate the robustness of the benchmark, while further studies on real-time interaction, context-memory sensitivity, and action validity expose more challenges ahead for game agents. Together, by offering a standardized, verifiable, and reproducible evaluation framework, GameWorld lays a robust foundation for advancing research on multimodal game agents and beyond. The project page is at https://gameworld-bench.github.io.
Mingyu Ouyang, Siyuan Hu, Kevin Qinghong Lin +2
National University of Singapore · University of Oxford
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.
As embodied models become powerful, humans will collaborate with multiple embodied AI agents at their workplace or home in the future. To ensure better communication between human users and the multi-agent system, it is crucial to interpret incoming information from agents in parallel and refer to the appropriate context for each query. Existing challenges include effectively compressing and communicating high volumes of individual sensory inputs in the form of video and correctly aggregating multiple egocentric videos to construct system-level memory. In this work, we first formally define a novel problem of understanding multiple long-horizon egocentric videos simultaneously collected from embodied agents. To facilitate research in this direction, we introduce MultiAgent-EgoQA (MA-EgoQA), a benchmark designed to systemically evaluate existing models in our scenario. MA-EgoQA provides 1.7k questions unique to multiple egocentric streams, spanning five categories: social interaction, task coordination, theory-of-mind, temporal reasoning, and environmental interaction. We further propose a simple baseline model for MA-EgoQA named EgoMAS, which leverages shared memory across embodied agents and agent-wise dynamic retrieval. Through comprehensive evaluation across diverse baselines and EgoMAS on MA-EgoQA, we find that current approaches are unable to effectively handle multiple egocentric streams, highlighting the need for future advances in system-level understanding across the agents. The code and benchmark are available at https://ma-egoqa.github.io.
Kangsan Kim, Yanlai Yang, Suji Kim +4
KAIST · New York University · Samsung Electronics +1