cs.AIAug 6, 2026

The Low Frequency Trap: Video Language Models Fail at Simple Event Bookkeeping

Authors: Sarvesh Baskar, Zikui Cai, Shayan Shabihi, Anirudh Satheesh, Muhammad R. Islam, Udari Madhushani Sehwag, Tom Goldstein, Furong Huang

Abstract

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.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Apr 25, 2026cs.CV

PushupBench: Your VLM is not good at counting pushups

Large vision-language models (VLMs) can recognize \textit{what} happens in video but fail to count \textit{how many} times. We introduce \textbf{PushupBench}, 446 long-form clips (avg. 36.7s) for evaluating repetition counting. The best frontier model achieves 42.1% exact accuracy; open-source 4B models score ∼\sim6%, matching supervised baselines. We show that accuracy alone misleads -- weaker models exploit the modal count rather than reason temporally. Fine-tuning on counting with 1k samples transfers to general video understanding: MVBench (+2.15), PerceptionTest (+1.88), TVBench (+4.54), suggesting counting is a proxy for broader temporal reasoning.PushupBench incorporated in \texttt{lmms-eval} (https://github.com/EvolvingLMMs-Lab/lmms-eval/pull/1262) and hosted on (pushupbench.com/)
Shengzhi Li, Jiarun Chen, Karun Sharma +2
Video UnderstandingCountingRepetitionPerceptionPhysical Activities
AskPDF
Jun 1, 2026cs.CV

Moment-Video: Diagnosing Temporal Fidelity of Video MLLMs on Momentary Visual Events

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.
Xiaolin Liu, Yilun Zhu, Xiangyu Zhao +9
Large Multimodal Models
AskPDF
Jun 13, 2026cs.CV

Conditional Multi-Event Temporal Grounding in Long-Form Video

Multimodal large language models have made rapid progress in video temporal grounding, yet real-world applications routinely require localizing every event that satisfies compositional temporal and spatial conditions. Existing benchmarks fall short: they localize only a single moment per query, count without temporal conditions, or treat grounding and counting as disjoint tasks. We introduce CoMET-Bench for Conditional Multi-Event Temporal Grounding in long-form video, comprising 2789 queries over 600 videos averaging 33.8 minutes across five real-world domains, with each query composed from 4 temporal conditions, 3 spatial conditions, and a dedicated negative-query subset. We further propose a unified evaluation protocol jointly measuring counting, grounding, and negative-query recognition, including a new Rejection-F1 metric that prevents trivial gaming by lazy "always-empty" models. Benchmarking a broad suite of MLLMs, agent-based, and grounding-specialized methods reveals that existing approaches remain far from solving this task. Building on these findings, we propose CoMET-Agent, a training-free agentic framework that reformulates the task as structured search-and-aggregate, improving F1@0.5 by 6.1% over GPT-5 purely through structural reasoning. Failure analysis further surfaces three open directions: fine-grained entity tracking, position-uniform retrieval, and causal event pairing.
Yuanhao Zou, Arthad Kulkarni, Lucas Tonanez +12
Temporal GroundingVisual Grounding
AskPDF