cs.CVAug 7, 2026

Stable Curves, Unstable Items: Item-Level Scaling Heterogeneity in Video LLMs

Authors: Wenzhang SunChunfeng WangXiangchen YinYujia ChenHao LiKun Zhan

Abstract

Aggregate scaling curves suggest that Video LLMs improve smoothly or saturate as visual budgets grow. We show that this view can conceal large, opposing changes at the item level. We represent each frozen model--item pair by its response trajectory under controlled visual budgets and derive matched-grid measures of configuration complementarity, harmful transitions, and text overwrite. Across five open Video LLMs from three architecture families, four multiple-choice benchmark splits, open-ended QA and summarization, and fixed-history dialogue generation, no single budget serves all items. On the four-model matched MCQA grid, item-level oracle headroom spans 8.88.8--18.918.9 accuracy points and 12.512.5--25.5%25.5\% of items are correct at a lower budget but wrong at a higher one. Task-appropriate continuous metrics show the same complementarity beyond multiple choice: Token-F1 oracle gaps are 2.72.7--3.73.7 score points on MLVU generation and 3.83.8--4.84.8 points on AVSD current-turn generation, even when mean quality improves with budget. The effect persists across frame count, spatial resolution, sampling policy, temporal--spatial allocation, and independently executed raw-video and cached pipelines, with per-item rates and membership tracking protocol choices. A controlled sampling intervention recovers 29.0%29.0\% of terminal regressions, and a structured frame audit identifies several recurring evidence pathways. We release per-item trajectories, protocol provenance, derived annotations, and reproducible analysis code as an auditing artifact. A confidence cascade matches fixed-128f128f accuracy while reducing average shared frame cost by 31.7%31.7\%, illustrating one operational use of the response matrix.

Explore similar work

Jul 14, 2026cs.CV

Accuracy Without Grounding: Diagnosing Visual Dependency Dissociation in Video LLM Benchmarks

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.
Jae Joong Lee
Aug 12, 2026cs.AI

Who Thinks Best Depends on How Long You Let Them: Budget-Dependent Rankings in LLM Evaluation

Standard evaluation of large language models assumes stable model rankings across inference conditions. We challenge this assumption by varying the token generation budget, i.e., the maximum tokens a model may produce, across seven levels (64--4,096), evaluating four models on three reasoning benchmarks (56,476 inferences). We report four findings: (i) 3--19% of items exhibit non-monotone behavior (accuracy decreasing with more budget), even after controlling for truncation, and this phenomenon is model-specific (cross-model overlap: 6--14%). (ii) Model rankings reverse across budgets on all benchmarks (p<0.01p {<} 0.01, McNemar). (iii) Oracle analysis reveals model complementarity up to +27.8+27.8pp, most pronounced at constrained budgets. (iv) A budget-aware router captures 14.1% of the oracle gap cross-domain; budget features help within-domain (+1.6+1.6 to +5.7+5.7pp) but are domain-specific and hurt transfer (1.2-1.2pp). These results argue for budget-conditioned evaluation protocols.
Rodrigo Guedes de Souza, Alison R. Panisson
Jul 13, 2026cs.CV

Do Video-LLMs Actually Watch? Diagnosing Character-Tracking Failures in Long-Form Video

Can a Video Large Language Model (Video-LLM) follow one person through a long video, keeping track of who they are well enough to report, in order, how their outfit changes across a full TV episode? Benchmarks increasingly score this kind of task, and the strongest open-source 7--8B models now reach 37--38% on InfiniBench's global appearance task, which asks exactly that. But does that score come from tracking the named character, or from something easier? We test this with a nine-condition diagnostic protocol applied to three architecturally distinct open-source Video-LLMs, with Gemini2.5Flash as a frontier reference, and find the accuracy does not come from character tracking. When we change the character named in the question to a different cast member, leaving the video and answer options untouched, the models change their answer only 4--31% of the time, so they are largely ignoring who the question asks about. Breaking that test down by the gender of the swapped name shows why: the models react more when the name is changed to a different-gender character than to a same-gender one (a 13--28 point gap), picking up coarse gender cues but unable to tell same-gender individuals apart. This shallow processing surfaces again when we drop the multiple-choice options and ask the same questions open-endedly: open-source accuracy drops 18--25 points, with none of 151 answers fully correct, versus a 12-point drop for Gemini. Further checks rule out the obvious innocent explanations, adding subtitles, using the most informative frames, or doubling the number of frames all leave character tracking unimproved, so the bottleneck is not how much video the model sees but how it ties that video to the person the question names. We release a diagnostic toolkit for auditing what such benchmark scores actually measure.
Mohammad Al-Ratrout, Shayla Sharmin, Aditya Raikwar +1