PushupBench: Your VLM is not good at counting pushups

Real-world video benchmarks provide broad coverage, but their fixed clips entangle event count, rate, duration, and visual complexity, making failure modes hard to isolate. While existing programmatic benchmarks offer better control, they score only the final answer rather than auditing reported events against executable ground truth. To bridge this gap, we introduce trace-grounded parametric profiling for event counting in three controlled video tasks: bouncing-ball wall contacts, visual blinks, and categorical state transitions. Across 2,190 videos, we vary event count N and frequency F while holding rendering fixed. Each video includes an executable event trace for capability-surface estimation and timestamp-level evaluation. Our results reveal a staged temporal failure. At an 80% reliability threshold, Gemini 3.6 Flash reliably counts persistent state transitions up to 12 events at 0.5 and 1.0 Hz, yet demonstrates no reliable positive-count region for transient blinking events. Thus, event representation dictates whether a model initially accesses evidence -- a limitation that compounds as count and frequency increase. In the high-count, high-frequency regime, only 0.2% of final counts are correct and the model recovers just 18.1% of true events. To test if visual access is the primary bottleneck, we increase sampling rate. Although this boosts Bounce Ball accuracy from 19.6% to 29.3%, the reported sequence agrees with ground truth only 3.7% of the time. Extra frames can therefore inflate final scores without producing faithful event recovery. Different prompting strategies yield similarly limited gains, and real-world video evaluations show the same concentration of success at low event counts. Ultimately, trace-grounded profiling shifts video evaluation from aggregate accuracy metrics to a detailed diagnostic of where temporal reasoning fails.

Video multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have made rapid progress on general and long-form video understanding, yet their ability to preserve brief answer-critical visual evidence remains underexplored. Many practical questions are determined by momentary visual events: localized actions or state transitions that may last only a few frames. Such evidence can be skipped by sparse frame sampling, suppressed by visual-token compression, or diluted by coarse temporal aggregation, causing failures that language-side reasoning cannot reliably recover. We introduce Moment-Video, a benchmark for diagnosing the temporal fidelity of video MLLMs through momentary visual event understanding. Each question is grounded in a localized, visually observable, and sampling-sensitive event, requiring models to notice, count, describe, or reason about transient evidence rather than rely on persistent objects, global scene context, or language priors. Moment-Video contains 1,000 human-verified video-QA pairs across 7 domains and 25 fine-grained subcategories, covering four task types: Temporal Occurrence, Temporal Counting, Action Description, and Temporal Reasoning. We evaluate 33 proprietary and open-source MLLMs on Moment-Video. The best-performing model, Seed-2.0-Pro, achieves only 39.6% overall accuracy, while most open-source models remain below 25%, revealing a substantial gap in momentary visual event understanding. Diagnostic analyses show that denser frame sampling improves some models but does not eliminate the bottleneck, and longer videos introduce stronger temporal-localization challenges. These findings suggest that current video MLLMs still lack temporally faithful representations for capturing, preserving, and using brief but decisive visual evidence.

Human perception of visual scenes is inherently temporal. We instinctively recognise whether a fruit is ripening or rotting, whether construction is progressing or being demolished, and approximately how much time separates two photographs of the same subject. Whether large vision-language models (VLMs) share this competence remains an open and practically important question. We introduce CHRONOSIGHT, a rigorously controlled benchmark evaluating five dimensions of visual temporal reasoning: CHRONORANK (chronological ordering of image sequences), CHRONOLOCATE (ordinal stage localisation from a single image), CHRONODELTA (estimation of time elapsed between two images on a logarithmic scale), CHRONOREVERSE (detection of temporally reversed sequences), and CHRONOODD (identification of a temporal outlier within a set). The benchmark comprises 1{,}000 items across eight process families (biological growth, food transformation, physical weathering, construction, environmental change, human ageing, astronomical phenomena, and urban dynamics) spanning timescales from minutes to millennia. We evaluate eight open-source VLMs (500 M to 19 B parameters) under two prompting regimes and collect human performance baselines. Human performance averages 0.89 across tasks; the best open model (Qwen2.5-VL-7B) reaches 0.40 under direct prompting, a gap we term chronological blindness. Lightweight LoRA fine-tuning on 151 examples raises CHRONODELTA accuracy from near-zero to 0.43, transferring zero-shot to related tasks (CHRONOODD: 0.37; CHRONOREVERSE: 0.64)suggesting the bottleneck is partly instruction following rather than visual perception. Benchmark, code, and predictions will be released upon acceptance.