Video understanding benchmarks have long centered on single-camera settings, where modern multi-modal language models achieve strong performance across image and video tasks. Yet, the real world runs on multi-camera networks: autonomous vehicles, security systems, and robots all gather data across many simultaneous views. We argue that this is not simply "more" of the single-camera problem; it is fundamentally different. Multi-camera reasoning requires handling context that scales with the number of views, resolving occlusions visible from only a subset of cameras, judging which views matter, and integrating evidence across perspectives that may overlap or diverge. Current models struggle with exactly these challenges, yet no benchmark systematically targets them. We introduce CrossView, a multi-camera video question-answering benchmark spanning autonomous driving, security surveillance, egocentric/exocentric video, and robotics. Evaluation of proprietary models, such as GPT-5.2, and open-source models, like Qwen3-VL, reveals consistently low accuracy, with open-source models trailing by a wide margin. Performance scales strongly with a model's ability to jointly process multiple viewpoints, positioning CrossView as a rigorous benchmark for multi-camera video. We open-source our code and dataset at https://utaustin-swarmlab.github.io/CrossView.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: CrossView data example illustrating multi-view reasoning . Multiple synchronized camera streams observe the same scene from different viewpoints (egocentric and exocentric). Answering the question requires integrating information across views (e.g., to identify the event that occurs after the saucepan is placed on the stovetop). CrossView evaluates such cross-view reasoning tasks across diverse domains, including robotics, surveillance, autonomous driving, and ego–exo interaction.
Benchmark
#Cam
#Q
Duration
Domains
Cross-View
Cam-ID
Multi-domain
Temp
Evt
Spat
Count
Summ
Image & Short-Video QA
VQAv2 [ 16 ]
1
1.4M
Image
Natural
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
✓
✓
✗
GQA [ 25 ]
1
22M
Image
Natural
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
✓
✗
✗
GazeVQA [ 27 ]
3
25K
∼ 2.5 min
Gaze (ego-exo)
✓
✗
✗
✗
✗
✓
✗
✗
TGIF-QA [ 28 ]
1
165K
< 10 s
GIFs
✗
✗
✗
✓
✗
✗
✓
✗
ActivityNet-QA [ 60 ]
1
58K
∼ 3 min
Activities
✗
✗
✗
✓
✗
✓
✓
✗
Table 1: Comparison of CrossView with existing VQA benchmarks. #Cam : number of simultaneous camera views. #Q : number of questions. Cross-View : whether questions require integrating evidence across camera perspectives. Cam-ID : whether the benchmark includes camera identification/selection questions. Multi-domain : whether the benchmark spans multiple domains. Questions : Temp (temporal), Evt (event ordering), Spat (spatial), Count (counting), Summ (summarization).
Figure 2: Dataset question distribution. Left: Questions are distributed among six categories, each contributing 1,000 questions. Right: Distributions across the four source datasets. MEVA and nuScenes contribute the majority of the questions (2,250 and 1,750 respectively), while Ego-Exo4D and AgiBot provide 1,250 and 750 questions.
Figure 3: Question categories in CrossView . The benchmark includes six types of multi-camera reasoning tasks grouped into three categories: temporal reasoning (temporal queries and event ordering), spatial reasoning (counting and spatial relationships), and holistic understanding (best-camera selection and scene summarization). Each question requires integrating information across multiple synchronized camera views and spans diverse domains including robotics (AgiBot), autonomous driving (nuScenes), surveillance (MEVA), and egocentric–exocentric interaction (Ego-Exo4D).
nuScenes
AgiBot
Family
Model
Counting
Event Ordering
Spatial
Temporal
Temporal
Event Ordering
Qwen
Qwen2.5-3B
32.5
36.8
30.1
32.2
52.0
50.8
Qwen2.5-7B
27.5
24.4
45.9
21.6
58.8
54.4
Qwen3-4B
46.6
46.4
28.9
33.8
66.4
49.2
Qwen3-8B
43.2
41.2
33.1
36.0
69.6
49.2
InternVL
InternVL2-8B
28.8
36.8
37.3
29.2
42.0
40.4
Table 2: Uniform sampling accuracy (%) on the vehicle-centric and robot-centric subsets of CrossView . Results are reported for nuScenes and AgiBot across counting, event ordering, spatial, and temporal reasoning tasks.
Ego-Exo4D
MEVA
Family
Model
Temporal
Event Ordering
Best Camera
Counting
Event Ordering
Spatial
Temporal
Best Camera
Qwen
Qwen2.5-3B
50.0
48.0
20.6
22.9
21.9
41.8
32.5
27.3
Qwen2.5-7B
45.2
49.2
25.8
11.1
83.2
17.6
49.2
34.1
Qwen3-4B
48.8
50.0
33.2
20.4
34.7
49.0
48.9
34.8
Qwen3-8B
51.6
46.4
28.8
23.8
36.7
40.4
52.1
38.6
InternVL
InternVL2-8B
28.8
43.6
20.2
18.9
41.4
47.3
52.8
36.6
Table 3: Uniform sampling accuracy (%) on the human-centric subsets of CrossView . Results are shown for Ego-Exo4D and MEVA across temporal reasoning, event ordering, counting, spatial reasoning, and best-camera identification tasks.
R-1
R-2
R-L
Family
Model
nuScenes
Ego-Exo4D
AgiBot
MEVA
nuScenes
Ego-Exo4D
AgiBot
MEVA
nuScenes
Ego-Exo4D
AgiBot
MEVA
Qwen
Qwen2.5-3B
26.3
28.8
34.4
9.5
5.3
4.3
7.9
0.5
15.0
17.7
21.8
7.6
Qwen2.5-7B
24.7
18.6
33.2
12.3
4.6
3.7
11.4
0.3
15.2
13.1
24.2
11.5
Qwen3-4B
17.9
25.9
21.8
6.7
4.9
4.3
6.3
1.0
11.8
15.5
14.3
4.9
Qwen3-8B
16.4
28.0
29.1
6.5
4.5
3.8
7.5
0.8
10.9
16.8
18.4
5.0
InternVL
InternVL2-8B
16.1
23.0
31.4
5.7
4.0
2.6
6.2
0.6
10.8
15.8
21.2
4.2
Table 4: Summarization performance on CrossView via ROUGE scores ( ×100 ) under uniform frame sampling. R-1 and R-2 denote ROUGE-N overlap of unigrams and bigrams, respectively, and R-L denotes ROUGE-L, based on the longest common subsequence. Frame counts match the evaluation settings used in Tables 2 and 3 .
Figure 4: Qualitative failure case. A driving example from CrossView under uniform sampling , with frames drawn independently from each of the six surround-view cameras. The VLM localizes the roadside construction-fence barrier as b) Front of the vehicle , likely because the front-right and back-right views capture it from a near front-on perspective; the correct answer is c) Right of the vehicle .
Dataset
Input
Counting
Temporal
Event Ordering
Spatial
Ego-Exo4D
Best Exo
–
40.7 ( − 4.5)
47.3 ( − 1.9)
–
Ego
–
40.4 ( − 4.8)
48.8 ( − 0.4)
–
nuScenes
Front
18.7 ( − 8.8)
21.6 ( ± 0.0)
32.0 ( + 7.6)
41.5 ( − 4.4)
Table 5: Effect of restricting inputs to a single camera on CrossView for Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct. Compared to multi-camera inputs, single-camera views often reduce performance, showing that many questions require evidence from multiple viewpoints. Deltas are relative to the multi-camera baseline for Qwen2.5-7B from Tables 2 and 3 ( green = single-camera better, red = multi-camera better, gray = no change).
Dataset
Strategy
Counting
Temporal
Event Ordering
Spatial
nuScenes
Uniform
27.5
21.6
24.4
45.9
Stitched
38.0 ( + 10.5)
26.2 ( + 4.6)
39.6 ( + 15.2)
46.3 ( + 0.4)
AgiBot
Uniform
–
58.8
54.4
–
Stitched
–
58.4 ( − 0.4)
48.4 ( − 6.0)
–
Ego-Exo4D
Uniform
–
45.2
49.2
–
Stitched
–
53.6 ( + 8.4)
48.0 ( − 1.2)
–
Table 6: Comparison of uniform and stitched frame sampling on CrossView for Qwen2.5-7B. Stitched sampling improves performance on several tasks requiring cross-view spatial reasoning ( e.g. , counting and event ordering on nuScenes), but gains are dataset-dependent. Deltas are relative to the uniform baseline from Tables 2 and 3 ( green = stitched better, red = uniform better).
Vision-language model evaluation measures multimodal systems’ perception, reasoning, grounding, robustness, and reliability across controlled and real-world tasks.
Multi-view video understanding requires integrating spatial and temporal evidence across multiple, often non-overlapping camera streams: tracking entities as they transition between viewpoints, aligning events across time, and reasoning about latent 4D continuity rather than any single visible frame. We introduce MVVBench, a benchmark for multi-view video reasoning built from real world multi camera datasets. Questions are curated to be monocular-ambiguous along both the view and the temporal axis: each question is unanswerable from any single view in the designated input set, and the majority are further unanswerable from any single moment. Each question becomes uniquely solvable only by jointly reasoning across views and across time. MVVBench spans diverse dynamic scenes and probes six capabilities: implicit/explicit attribute identification, implicit/explicit relative distance, relative camera pose, and compositional counting, with human-authored QA and rigorous verification. Beyond benchmarking, we provide an extensive analysis of when and why current vision language models succeed or fail, characterizing errors due to temporal mis-localization, cross-view identity breaks, and brittle multi-hop reasoning. We then study inference-time elicitation strategies that unlock latent multi-view competence---task-specific chain-of-thought scaffolds and structured cross-view evidence aggregation---yielding substantial gains without retraining. Finally, we present preliminary evidence that reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards can elicit some latent multi-view competence in the base model, pointing to training-time approaches as a promising direction for future work. Together, MVVBench offers a rigorous evaluation of 4D multi-view reasoning and a foundation for future progress toward reliable embodied perception.
The rapid progress of Large Language Models (LLMs) has spurred growing interest in Multi-modal LLMs (MLLMs) and motivated the development of benchmarks to evaluate their perceptual and comprehension abilities. Existing benchmarks, however, are limited to static images or single videos, overlooking the complex interactions across multiple videos. To address this gap, we introduce the Multi-Video Perception Evaluation Benchmark (MVPBench), a new benchmark featuring 14 subtasks across diverse visual domains designed to evaluate models on extracting relevant information from video sequences to make informed decisions. MVPBench includes 5K question-answering tests involving 2.7K video clips sourced from existing datasets and manually annotated clips. Extensive evaluations reveal that current models struggle to process multi-video inputs effectively, underscoring substantial limitations in their multi-video comprehension. We anticipate MVPBench will drive advancements in multi-video perception.
Purui Bai, Tao Wu, Jiayang Sun +3
MAIS & NLPR, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · SIST, ShanghaiTech University, Shanghai, China
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have made rapid progress in single-video understanding, yet their ability to reason across multiple independent video streams remains poorly understood. Existing multi-video benchmarks rely largely on human-annotated real-world footage, limiting the precision of spatial, temporal, and physical ground truth and making it difficult to diagnose model failures. We introduce SYNCR, a controlled synthetic benchmark for cross-video reasoning with programmatically verified grounding. Built using Habitat, Kubric, and CLEVRER simulator engines, SYNCR contains 4,000 multi-video question-answer pairs grounded in 4,827 unique videos. It evaluates MLLMs across eight tasks spanning four diagnostic pillars: Temporal Alignment, Spatial Tracking, Comparative Reasoning, and Holistic Synthesis. Our zero-shot evaluation of leading open- and closed-weight MLLMs reveals a substantial gap between current models and humans: the best model achieves only 64.5% average accuracy, compared to an 89.5% human baseline. Models perform relatively well on temporal ordering but struggle with precise physical and spatial reasoning, with the best model reaching only 29.8% accuracy on Kinematic Comparison. We further find that parameter scaling and reasoning-specialized post-training improve temporal alignment capabilities, but do not reliably address fine-grained physical tracking or global spatial synthesis. Finally, a sim-to-real correlation analysis suggests that SYNCR tracks model-level trends on a real-world multi-video benchmark.
Sara Ghazanfari, Siddharth Garg, Prashanth Krishnamurthy +1