EgoErrorVQA: Assess Egocentric Comprehension Capabilities through Procedural Errors for Ego-Agentic AI
Organizations: Department of EEE, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University · School of EEE, Nanyang Technological University
Abstract
The majority of our everyday activities are procedural and consist of sequences of interdependent steps. However, existing benchmarks for Visual Agents and Visual Language Models (VLMs) overlook the evaluation of their procedural comprehension ability from an egocentric visual perspective, particularly for detecting procedural errors, a critical capability for everyday assistance. To bridge this gap, the EgoErrorVQA task is firstly proposed for egocentric procedural comprehension with explicit procedural errors modeling. Besides, we develop a user-friendly evaluator agent based on the Agent2Agent (A2A) protocol, enabling rigorous and standardized evaluation of visual agents through VQA-based interaction. A range of models are evaluated using both open-ended and multiple-choice questions, revealing persistent weaknesses in handling procedural errors and error types. Moreover, we introduce Ego-ADR, an Adaptive Decoupled Reasoning framework that decouples complex procedural reasoning to enhance models' understanding of procedural errors. It achieves consistent performance gains over the selected baselines and attains state-of-the-art results on several metrics under comparable settings. Code: https://github.com/z1oong/EgoErrorVQA
Figures & tables
| Benchmark | Videos | QA-pairs | Procedural | Aciton Label | Error Centric | LLM Scoring | Multiple Scenarios | Open- end Question | Multiple- choice Question |
| EgoVQA ( Fan, 2019 ) | 16 | 600 | {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\times} | {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\times} | {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\times} | {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\times} | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| AssistQ ( Wong et al., 2022 ) | 100 | 531 | ✓ | ✓ | {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\times} | {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\times} | ✓ | {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\times} | ✓ |
| EgoTaskQA ( Jia et al., 2022 ) | 2K | 40K | ✓ | ✓ | {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\times} | {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\times} | ✓ | {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\times} | ✓ |
| EgoPlan-Bench ( Chen et al., 2023 ) | - | 4939 | ✓ | ✓ | {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\times} | {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\times} | ✓ | {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\times} | ✓ |
| EgoSchema ( Mangalam et al., 2023 ) | - | 5063 | {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\times} | {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\times} | {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\times} | {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\times} | ✓ | {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\times} | ✓ |
| VidEgoThink ( Cheng et al., 2024a ) | 195 | 600 | {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\times} | ✓ | {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\times} | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\times} |
| Benchmark | Source | Clips | Correct samples | Error samples | Q-Len A-Len | QA pairs |
| Open-end | Cap | 960 | 632 | 328 | 12.86 15.57 | 3560 |
| Oops | 215 | 175 | 40 | |||
| Tent | 184 | 124 | 60 | |||
| Assem | 446 | 341 | 105 | |||
| Multiple-choice | Cap | 1000 | 660 | 340 | - 1.38 | 1857 |
| Oops | 215 | 175 | 40 |
| Method | frames | Cook | Tent | Toy | Hand | Avg-Sim. |
| Human | - | 3.79 | 3.89 | 3.91 | 3.47 | 3.77 |
| GPT-4o | 8f | 2.97 | 3.14 | 3.46 | 3.5 | 3.17 |
| GPT-4o-mini | 8f | 2.84 | 3.18 | 3.33 | 3.33 | 3.05 |
| Gemini-2.5-flash | 8f | 2.82 | 2.48 | 2.89 | 3.39 | 2.87 |
| Open-Source 7B / 8B | ||||||
| LLaVA-OneVision | 8f | 2.85 | 3.17 | 3.82 | 3.34 | 3.18 |
| Method | frames | Acc | Pre | Recall | F1 | C | Om | UA | WA | WOb | WOr |
| Human | - | 85.9 | 82.6 | 65.5 | 73.1 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| GPT-4o | 8f | 57.9 | 17.5 | 25.6 | 20.8 | 75.0 | 26.8 | 70.5 | 9.6 | 23.3 | 13.6 |
| GPT-4o-mini | 8f | 28.5 | 9.1 | 45.5 | 15.1 | 31.8 | 3.6 | 1.6 | 30.6 | 15.6 | 46.9 |
| Gemini-2.5-flash | 8f | 51.4 | 11.1 | 16.5 | 13.3 | 68.3 | 8.9 | 32.8 | 13.4 | 13.3 | 12.4 |
| Open-Source 7B / 8B | |||||||||||
| LLaVA-OneVision | 8f | 64.5 | 5.5 | 3.3 | 4.2 | 92.2 | 1.8 | 19.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Method | Level | TP | Precision | Recall | F1 |
| Qwen2-VL | Deep | 172 | 11.2 | 67.5 | 19.3 |
| Shallow | 84 | 10.6 | 21.1 | 14.1 | |
| CoT | 75 | 8.2 | 21.7 | 11.9 | |
| Qwen2.5-VL | Deep | 183 | 11.3 | 80.3 | 19.8 |
| Shallow | 76 | 7.1 | 22.7 | 10.8 | |
| CoT | 134 | 8.2 | 77.9 | 14.8 |
| Match | Narration | Precision | Recall | F1 |
| {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\times} | {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\times} | 10.1 | 97.3 | 18.2 |
| {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\times} | ✓ | 11.1 | 78.7 | 19.4 |
| ✓ | {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\times} | 12.4 | 24.3 | 16.5 |
| ✓ | ✓ | 11.3 | 80.3 | 19.8 |
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct | Video-LLaVA | EgoGPT | Vinci |
| Q: What mistake did I make when using the switch? A: You connected switch S2 and lamp L1 in parallel and then wired S2 into the series circuit of the motor and battery box… GT: I used switch S1 instead of switch S2, which is incorrect based on the instructions. Qwen: 2 Qwen Reason: The answer describes a different mistake than the one provided in the ground truth. It suggests using S1 instead of S2, which is not mentioned in the model’s answer. Deepseek: 4 Deepseek Reason: The model’s answer is mostly correct, but it could be more clear and concise. It provides a detailed explanation of the mistake, but it could be more concise for a general audience. | Q: Did I use the wrong part when I attach track to chassis? A: Yes, you did. You used a wheel instead of a track. GT: No, I used the correct part. Qwen: 1 Qwen Reason: The model’s answer is completely incorrect as it states that a wheel was used instead of a track, while the ground truth indicates that the correct part was used. Deepseek: 2 Deepseek Reason: The model’s answer is partially correct. It correctly identifies that a wheel was used instead of a track, but it also contains a minor error by stating that the wheel was used instead of a track. The ground truth is that the correct part was used, so the model’s answer is mostly wrong. | Q: What went wrong when I tried to detach the bumper from the body? A:The screw was not properly loosened, making it difficult to remove. GT: This action was unnecessary because the bumper was already properly attached to the body. Qwen: 1 Qwen Reason: The model’s answer does not match the ground truth. The ground truth states that detaching the bumper was unnecessary, while the model suggests a specific technical issue with the screw. Deepseek: 3 Deepseek Reason: The model’s answer is partially correct. It correctly identifies the issue with the screw, but it does not fully address the ground truth that the bumper was already properly attached to the body. | Q: Did I discard both ends of the tortilla without any leftovers? A:You did discard both ends of the tortilla without any leftovers. GT: Yes, I discarded both ends of the tortilla completely. Qwen: 5 Qwen Reason: The model’s answer is a perfect match to the ground truth. Deepseek: 4 Deepseek Reason: The model’s answer is mostly correct, but it lacks the specific detail of discarding both ends of the tortilla completely. It could be interpreted as partially correct or mostly correct. |
| Coefficient | A vs B | A vs C | B vs C | All |
| Cohen’s Kappa | 0.716 | 0.771 | 0.646 | 0.711 |
| Fleiss’ Kappa | - | - | - | 0.710 |
| Pearson | 0.950 | 0.959 | 0.934 | - |
VLM Reasoning
Vision-language model reasoning studies how multimodal systems use visual evidence and language to answer questions, plan, and explain.
See all 853 papers