Which Way Did It Move? Diagnosing and Overcoming Directional Motion Blindness in Video-LLMs

Video large language models (Video-LLMs) are increasingly used as the perceptual front end of world models, a role that assumes they can read motion: how fast something moves, which way it travels, how hard it is pushed. We show they cannot. A Video-LLM can watch two clips of the same person in the same room, name every object in both, and still fail to say which clip moves faster. We introduce MotionBlind, a contrastive benchmark of self-recorded video for physically grounded motion(speed, magnitude, and direction), the variables a world model must predict. Each instance is a pair of near-identical clips that differ only in motion. Each clip carries two complementary yes/no questions, giving four items per instance, and a model earns credit only if all four are correct. We report Instance Accuracy(IAcc), which has a 6.25% chance floor. Single-frame, appearance, and language-only shortcuts all collapse to it. MotionBlind complements the recent TimeBlind benchmark. We run a controlled study of six open and two frontier Video-LLMs, varying whether the video is present, whether frames are shown in the correct temporal order, and how frames are sampled (1 to 24 frames, four selection strategies). Open models sit near the 6.25% floor, and scale does not help. Removing the video drops every model to zero IAcc, and shuffling frames collapses IAcc to chance, so the task genuinely needs video in order. Neither more frames nor smarter frame selection closes the gap, because these change which frames are seen, not whether motion is read. Only Gemini3.1 Pro clears the benchmark overall, and even it fails on speed. A frontend that cannot tell two speeds of the same action apart is not yet a trustworthy source of supervision, reward, or evaluation for a world model.

Video Large Language Models (VideoLLMs) have shown strong progress in video understanding, yet they still suffer from hallucinations that are inconsistent with visual evidence. Existing benchmarks mainly focus on object hallucination or coarse action perception, leaving a key video-specific problem underexplored: motion hallucination, in which models infer human motions that are absent from the video. We present MoHallBench, a benchmark for diagnosing motion hallucination in VideoLLMs. MoHallBench systematically evaluates three major sources of hallucination: co-occurrence priors, sequential inference, and similarity confusion. It contains 11,306 video clips and 40,493 question-answer pairs, covering binary-choice, multiple-choice, and generative settings. We further introduce a bi-directional questioning protocol with bias-aware metrics to reduce affirmation bias in binary evaluation. Experiments on ten recent open-source VideoLLMs reveal a clear decoupling between action recognition and hallucination resistance, as models that perform well on positive action recognition often fail on adversarial negatives. Among all settings, sequential inference hallucination is the most severe, showing that current models tend to over-infer expected outcomes from partial motion cues. Our analyses further confirm that stronger priors and finer-grained similarity substantially amplify hallucination. We hope MoHallBench can facilitate future evaluation and mitigation of motion hallucination in VideoLLMs.

Benchmark accuracy in video large language models (LLMs) is often treated as evidence of visual understanding. We audit this assumption across twenty models spanning 2-78B parameters and ten architecture families. We introduce the Visual Dependency Gap (VDG), the difference in per-question correctness between original-video and black-screen conditions. Paired McNemar tests on MVBench show that accuracy and visual dependency are separable: models differ on original video (p = 0.0003) but not on black screens (p = 0.53). Across models, task-type rankings are stable: Attribute Perception is strongly visual, whereas Temporal Reasoning approaches the language-only baseline. A diagnostic ladder from black screen to single frame, shuffled frames, and original video reveals that frame diversity supplies most of the visual benefit, while temporal order contributes near-zero accuracy across sixteen open-weight models. An ablation from 0.5 to 24 FPS rules out sparse sampling as the cause. H.264 experiments further show that stable aggregate accuracy conceals bidirectional question-level answer flips. The diagnostic also generalizes to four API-accessed models, whose VDG values range from 0.025 to 0.315. These results motivate VDG as a standard audit for whether video benchmarks measure visually grounded capability. Code is available at https://github.com/JaeLee18/accuracy-without-grounding.