Organizations: School of Artificial Intelligence, Wuhan University · Center for Language and Information Research, Wuhan University · Southwest Jiaotong University · MBZUAI · The University of Manchester · Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University
Current video benchmarks for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) focus on event recognition, temporal ordering, and long-context recall, but overlook a harder capability required for expert procedural judgment: tracking how ongoing interactions update the procedural state and thereby determine the correctness of later actions. We introduce SiMing-Bench, the first benchmark for evaluating this capability from full-length clinical skill videos. It targets rubric-grounded process-level judgment of whether interaction-driven state updates preserve procedural correctness across an entire workflow. SiMing-Bench is instantiated with SiMing-Score, a physician-annotated dataset of real clinical skill examination videos spanning cardiopulmonary resuscitation, automated external defibrillator operation, and bag-mask ventilation, each paired with a standardized step-wise rubric and dual-expert labels. Across diverse open- and closed-source MLLMs, we observe consistently weak agreement with physician judgments. Moreover, weak performance on rubric-defined intermediate steps persists even when overall procedure-level correlation appears acceptable, suggesting that coarse global assessment substantially overestimates current models' procedural judgment ability. Additional analyses with binary step judgment and step-aligned clips indicate that the bottleneck is not merely fine-grained scoring or temporal localization, but modeling how continuous interactions update procedural state over time.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison between SiMing-Bench and prior video benchmarks. (a) SiMing-Bench is built on full-workflow clinical skill videos and paired with expert-defined rubrics and step-wise scores, enabling evaluation of whether models can track continuous interactions throughout an entire procedure and make process-level procedural judgments. (b)(c) Existing benchmarks mainly evaluate localized video understanding, such as instrument recognition, temporal localization, and spatial reasoning.
Benchmark
Domain
IC
FV
SA
IPJ
Major Evaluation Target
MVBench ( Li et al., 2024b )
General Video
✗
✗
✗
✗
Temporal Understanding
Video-MME ( Fu et al., 2025 )
General Video
✗
✗
✗
✗
Compositional Video Understanding
LVBench ( Wang et al., 2025a )
General Video
✗
✗
✗
✗
Long Video Understanding
EgoTempo ( Plizzari et al., 2025 )
Egocentric Video
✗
✗
✗
✗
Egocentric Temporal Understanding
OmniMMI ( Wang et al., 2025c )
Streaming Video
✓
✗
✗
✗
Streaming Video Understanding
ScaleLong ( Ma et al., 2025 )
Long Video
✗
✓
✗
✗
Long-video Understanding
Table 1: Comparison between SiMing-Bench and prior video benchmarks. IC denotes interaction-centric design, FV denotes full-workflow video, SA denotes step-wise annotation, and IPJ denotes interaction-driven procedural judgment. Together, these properties distinguish SiMing-Bench from prior benchmarks by enabling direct evaluation of interaction-driven state validity judgment in long, interaction-rich clinical workflows.
Skill
Avg. Duration
#Rubric Steps
CPR
85.6 s
19
AED
50.2 s
9
BMV
33.1 s
5
Total videos
200
Total duration
563 min
Avg. duration per sample
168.9 s
Table 2: Dataset statistics of SiMing-Bench. Each video contains a complete assessment including CPR, AED, and BMV, rather than a single isolated skill. We report the average duration and rubric steps for each skill, together with the overall dataset scale after quality control.
Metric
Value
Overall-score agreement (PLCC)
0.871
Step-level agreement (Cohen’ κ )
0.732
Step instances requiring adjudication
65 (1.06%)
Videos excluded during curation
33
Table 3: Annotation agreement and curation statistics before adjudication.
Models
Parameters
PLCC
SRCC
Cohen’s κ
MCC
P
R
F1
Open-source Video-MLLMs
LLaVA-Video ( Zhang et al., 2024 )
7B
0.104
-0.095
0.033
-0.033
0.157
0.135
0.145
LLaVA-Video ( Zhang et al., 2024 )
72B
-0.047
-0.015
0.044
0.039
0.207
0.369
0.266
LLaVA-OneVision ( Li et al., 2024a )
7B
0.038
0.123
0.038
0.029
0.145
0.059
0.084
Qwen3-VL ( Bai et al., 2025 )
30B
0.037
0.099
-0.010
0.0434
0.174
0.659
0.276
Omni-MLLMs
Table 4: Main results on SiMing-Bench. We evaluate diverse MLLMs under the rubric-grounded full-video setting at both the overall-score and step levels. MCC, Precision, Recall, and F1 are additionally reported for binary step correctness judgment (more details in Section 4.3 ).
Models
PLCC
SRCC
Cohen’s κ
LLaVA-Video-7B
-0.150 (-0.254)
-0.170 (-0.075)
0.009 (-0.024)
LLaVA-Video-72B
0.057 (+0.104)
0.098 (+0.113)
-0.003 (-0.047)
LLaVA-OneVision
0.000 (-0.038)
0.000 (-0.123)
0.000 (-0.038)
Qwen3-VL
0.135 (+0.098)
0.125 (+0.026)
0.000 (+0.010)
Qwen3-Omni
0.092 (+0.094)
0.110 (+0.099)
0.075 (+0.075)
GPT-4o
-0.018 (-0.176)
0.004 (-0.165)
0.019 (+0.019)
Table 5: Comparison between the full-video setting and the step-aligned clips setting on PLCC, SRCC and Cohen’s κ . Improvements are highlighted with red backgrounds.
Figure 2: Comparison between the full-video setting and the step-aligned clip setting. Each dumbbell connects the same model under the two evaluation settings.
Figure 3: Comparison between the full-video setting and the step-aligned clips setting on binary step judgment. For each model, we report MCC and F1 under both settings.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 4: Multi-frame examples of the three emergency care skills considered in this study are shown: cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), automated external defibrillator (AED) operation, and bag-mask ventilation (BMV). The figure illustrates how each procedure unfolds as a temporally ordered sequence of coordinated actions, highlighting the highly structured and interaction-intensive nature of these tasks.
Figure 5: Representative example of the physician-defined scoring rubric in SiMing-Bench. The left panel presents the original Chinese examination form, and the right panel presents its English-translated version.
Figure 6: Standardized CPR rubric defined by physicians and used for step-level annotation in our benchmark.
Figure 7: Standardized AED rubric defined by physicians and used for step-level annotation in our benchmark.
Figure 8: Standardized BMV rubric defined by physicians and used for step-level annotation in our benchmark.
Models
Frames
LLaVA-Video
64
LLaVA-OneVision
64
Qwen3-VL
64
Qwen3-Omni
60
GPT-4o
50
UniMed-VL
30
Appendix
Table 6: The evaluated models and the number of input frames used for each model.
Figure 9: Prompt template for full-video step-wise scoring.
Figure 10: Prompt template for full-video step-wise error detection.
Figure 11: Prompt template for step-aligned clip scoring.
Figure 12: Prompt template for step-aligned clip error detection.
Figure 13: Screenshot of the IRB approval document.