A long-video answer is evidence-supported only when the frames decoded from the video cover every event the answer depends on. Existing evaluations score final-answer correctness or predicted evidence intervals, but the frames a method decodes before answering are rarely audited, so correct answers can still rest on incomplete observation. We introduce VES-Bench, a 600-question benchmark of Temporal Ordering and Event Counting items over 348 public long videos. Each item carries a jointly necessary set of evidence intervals, letting us audit at three strictness levels whether a method's decoded frames cover every one of them. We also propose TRACE, a training-free agent that grounds answers in raw visual clips, builds an evidence bundle round by round, and stops only when the answer stabilises as the bundle grows and a final pass over the same clips returns the same answer. Under a same-backbone audit, TRACE answers 50.7% of questions correctly with at least two decoded frames inside every evidence interval, at 98.7 frames per question: over 10 points above uniform decoding at 128 frames (40.2%), and within 2.6 points of uniform decoding at 256 frames at 0.39x its frame cost, while reaching the highest answer accuracy in the audit (63.5%). TRACE also stays competitive on Video-MME (86.1), LVBench (75.6), and LongVideoBench (75.1).
Figures & tables
Figure 2: TRACE workflow. The system converts the full video into visual anchors, constructs prefix bundles to form an evidence growth trajectory, and uses the Trajectory Reconciler to stop, drop, refine, or expand the observed evidence.
Figure 3: VES-Bench duration and evidence-layout statistics.
Method
Video-MME
LVBench
LongVideoBench
Closed-source VLMs
Gemini-2.5-Flash
74.2
62.2
66.2
Gemini-2.5-Pro
82.4
67.4
69.8
Open-source VLMs
Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B
79.2
67.7
–
AdaReTaKe-72B
73.5
53.3
67.0
Table 1: Answer-only long-video benchmark accuracy (Video-MME no-subtitle; LVBench/LongVideoBench validation). Backbones in parentheses. The VCA (Gemini-2.5-Pro) rows are our reruns; all other rows reproduce the numbers reported by their sources ( Comanici et al. 2025 ; Bai et al. 2025a ; Wang et al. 2025b ; Bai et al. 2025b ; Zuo et al. 2025 ; Guo et al. 2025 ; Zhang et al. 2025 ; OpenAI 2025 ; Yang et al. 2025 ; Hurst et al. 2024 ; Wang et al. 2025d ) . Evidence-supported claims are on VES-Bench (Table 2 ).
Fr
Acc ↑
EP ↑
AR ↑
Cov@ k↑
ECA@ k↑
Method
(%)
(%)
k=1/2/3
k=1/2/3
Non-visual baselines
Random
0
25.0
–
–
–
0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0
Blind GPT-4-Turbo (text-only)
0
25.3
–
–
–
0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0
Same-backbone uniform sweep (Gemini-3-Flash)
Gemini-3-Flash, 16
16
35.3
13.7
1.00
19.8 / 4.0 / 1.7
9.2 / 2.5 / 1.3
Table 2: VES-Bench audit. Random and Blind GPT-4-Turbo (text-only) are non-visual baselines; ECA@ k is 0 by construction. Uniform- k rows report sampler statistics (Fr, EP, AR, Cov@ k ) computed on the canonical centered-uniform schedule tj=(j+21)Ti/n ; these are dataset-defined and identical across backbones, so the Direct VLM block at Uniform- 64 shares them with the Gemini-3-Flash, 64 row above and varies only in Acc and ECA@ k .
Figure 4: Frame budget against evidence-supported correctness, plotted from Table 2 on a log frame axis. The grey curve is the same-backbone uniform sweep; each point is labelled with its ECA@ 2 . TRACE ( 98.7 frames) and AVP ( 101.3 ) sit on the vertical rule, 2.6 frames apart.
Figure 5: Every prediction at k=2 split into Cov-Corr (correct, Cov@ 2 passing), Uncov-Corr (correct without Cov@ 2 ), and Wrong. Cov-Corr is ECA@ 2 and Cov-Corr + Uncov-Corr is Acc, both in Table 2 , up to independent rounding of each value.
Temporal Ordering
Event Counting
Method
Acc ↑
ECA@ k↑
Acc ↑
ECA@ k↑
(%)
1/2/3
(%)
1/2/3
Gemini-3-Flash, 64
49.7
37.0 / 6.3 / 1.0
38.0
36.7 / 24.7 / 15.3
Gemini-3-Flash, 128
75.0
72.0 / 45.3 / 14.7
40.0
40.0 / 35.0 / 30.0
Gemini-3-Flash, 256
74.3
74.0 / 67.7 / 52.7
39.0
39.0 / 39.0 / 36.3
VCA
48.0
2.7 / 0.0 / 0.0
27.7
14.0 / 6.7 / 3.0
Table 3: Per-family breakdown. ECA@ k at k=1,2,3 . Temporal Ordering has the largest spread across k (short per-event intervals); Event Counting Acc plateaus near 40% across the Gemini-3-Flash budget points, reflecting a recognition bottleneck.
Variant
Acc ↑
EP ↑
Cov@2 ↑
ECA@2 ↑
TRACE
63.5
29.1
78.5
50.7
w/o final answer replay
59.7
28.2
77.3
42.0
w/o growth trajectory
55.0
19.4
56.3
27.5
w/o EXPAND
53.0
26.4
49.0
25.5
fixed-round stopping
52.3
25.7
47.2
24.0
Table 4: Ablation of TRACE components on VES-Bench (Gemini-3-Flash). Headline densities Cov@ 2 , ECA@ 2 ; full k=1,2,3 in Appendix Table 7 .
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Action
Trigger
Execution
STOP
A minimal stable prefix exists: later anchors change neither its answer nor its supported facts, and it has no unmet evidence need.
Select the prefix bundle for final answering.
DROP
Some anchors introduce noise, conflict, or misleading local evidence.
Remove target anchors and reconstruct the trajectory.
REFINE
An observed interval is relevant but lacks temporal or spatial detail.
Reobserve the candidate interval with a more suitable observation strategy.
EXPAND
The current evidence bundle lacks events, states, or identity cues that may affect the answer.
Introduce new candidate intervals from unexplored segments.
Appendix
Table 5: Control actions emitted by the Trajectory Reconciler.
Method
Acc
EP
Cov@2
ECA@2
G3F, 64
43.8±3.8
13.7±1.1
34.3±3.8
15.5±2.8
G3F, 128
57.5±3.9
13.8±1.1
74.7±3.2
40.2±3.9
G3F, 256
56.7±4.1
13.7±1.1
95.5±1.7
53.3±4.2
VCA
37.8±3.9
16.9±1.0
5.8±1.9
3.3±1.4
AVP
59.0±3.9
13.7±0.4
68.2±3.7
39.7±3.9
TRACE
63.5±3.9
29.1±1.5
78.5±3.3
50.7±4.0
Appendix
Table 6: 95% bootstrap confidence intervals at k=2 (Gemini-3-Flash). Paired bootstrap shows TRACE vs. AVP differences in EP, Cov@ 2 , and ECA@ 2 are significant at p<0.01 ; AR rescales EP by the constant EPref and carries the same test.
Variant
Acc ↑
Cov@ k↑
ECA@ k↑
1/2/3
1/2/3
TRACE
63.5
98.3 / 78.5 / 60.3
63.0 / 50.7 / 39.0
w/o final answer replay
59.7
97.8 / 77.3 / 59.5
58.0 / 42.0 / 31.0
w/o growth trajectory
55.0
90.3 / 56.3 / 30.5
49.5 / 27.5 / 16.3
w/o EXPAND
53.0
84.2 / 49.0 / 24.8
44.0 / 25.5 / 13.7
fixed-round stopping
52.3
82.3 / 47.2 / 23.5
43.5 / 24.0 / 13.0
Appendix
Table 7: Ablation of TRACE components on VES-Bench across density levels. The row for TRACE matches Table 4 ; the columns expose how each ablated component shifts Cov@ k and ECA@ k at k=1,2,3 .
Source
License
Ego4D ( Grauman et al. 2022 )
Ego4D License Agreement
Public YouTube
Terms of the original uploader
Appendix
Table 8: Licenses of the VES-Bench source datasets.
Video multimodal large language models achieve strong results on existing benchmarks, but answer accuracy alone does not establish whether they can locate the evidence needed to answer a question. We introduce VideoZeroBench, a challenging long-video benchmark with manually annotated question-answer pairs spanning 13 video domains. Questions target fine-grained cues, fleeting events, and evidence distributed across multiple segments. Temporal intervals and key-frame boxes are annotated where applicable. All questions undergo two rounds of cross-verification for answer validity and evidence quality. Our five-level diagnostic protocol compares answering with and without evidence hints, then combines answer correctness with independently evaluated temporal and spatial grounding. Across 19 evaluated models, the best standard QA accuracy is 24.8% (Level-3), achieved by Gemini-3.7-Flash. No model exceeds 1.8% when correct answers and accurate spatio-temporal localization are jointly required (Level-5). Analyses of atomic abilities, evidence spans, input modalities, and thinking-with-videos inference further characterize where the evaluated systems struggle. These findings motivate more precise evidence search and localization for long-video question answering. Our code and data are publicly released.
Long-video question answering is limited by the high cost of visual tokens and by the fixed context width of current VLMs. A long-video question may require broad temporal coverage, but the answer is often supported by only a compact set of moments. To locate these moments efficiently, we propose token-budgeted Video Evidence Indexing (VEI): given a dense low-resolution Video Preview, the model constructs a compact high-resolution Evidence Set for final reasoning. We treat VEI as a policy that must jointly solve evidence localization, which finds question-relevant moments, and budget planning, which decides where to spend the limited high-resolution frame budget. We implement this idea with an inference pipeline: the Video Preview provides cheap global coverage, Video Evidence Indexing constructs the Evidence Set, and Answer Generation combines both inputs for final VQA. To address missing frame-level supervision, we adopt privileged self-distillation, where an answer-aware teacher guides the normal test-time policy on student-generated indexing traces. We explore previews at 1, 6, 12, and 24 visual tokens per frame, training a single policy that supports all four resolutions. Experiments show that Video Evidence Indexing improves accuracy under limited visual budgets, and self-distillation further improves both QA accuracy and temporal evidence localization.
Long-video question answering requires identifying sparse yet critical evidence from videos containing thousands of frames under a constrained visual-token budget. Existing methods either select query-aware frames in a single pass or rely on timestamped text solely as retrieval guidance, leading to two key limitations. First, selected frames tend to cluster around local relevance peaks, and once the budget is exhausted, omitted evidence cannot be recovered. Second, textual and visual evidence remain weakly aligned. We propose GCR, a training-free framework that casts fixed-budget frame selection as a joint evidence curation problem. Ground converts timestamped text into temporal events, selects query-relevant real frame anchors, and renders each event text onto its temporally aligned frame. Cover supplements grounded events with direct visual anchors for complementary visual evidence and applies global maximal marginal relevance to preserve diverse context. Refine revisits omitted temporal regions and replaces the weakest revisable context frame with a real-frame medoid---but only when the medoid offers greater evidence value. GCR maintains a fixed number of chronologically ordered frames and requires no VLM training or architectural modification. Experiments on LongVideoBench and Video-MME, across three 7B backbones and frame budgets of 8, 32, and 64, demonstrate consistent improvements in long-video QA. With the 7B LLaVA-OV backbone and 32 frames, GCR achieves 64.25% and 62.15% on the two benchmarks, outperforming the strongest reproduced baselines by 2.54 and 1.93 percentage points, respectively.
Fan Wei, Siru Zhong, Runmin Dong +3
Department of Earth System Science, Tsinghua University · 5The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · School of Artificial Intelligence, Sun Yat-Sen University +2