Dementia affects an estimated 57 million people worldwide, and for most families the hardest part of care is not memory loss but the behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD): agitation, wandering, resistance to care, sundowning. Understanding these symptoms requires more than recognizing the behavior itself; it also requires knowing what happened beforehand. The same behavior may call for a different response depending on its trigger. Video-language models (VLMs) could potentially support caregivers, yet no existing benchmark evaluates this capability. To fill this gap, we present DementiaCare-Bench: 56 professionally produced caregiver training videos segmented into 94 clips across nine BPSD categories, with 2023 questions generated by a multi-agent pipeline that grounds every clinical claim in a verbatim transcript span. Each question is then probed under four visual conditions and labelled by the least it requires, so its visual demand is measured rather than assumed. Measurement contradicts intent: we wrote 77.7% of the questions to require ordered frames, and 34.8% do. Across 12 current VLMs the pattern is uniform. The best reach 85% overall, but that average is carried by questions a language model can answer from clinical knowledge alone; accuracy falls by 17 points on average on questions that require the ordered clip, and a leading open model scores at chance on judging whether a caregiver's response was appropriate. A lightweight LoRA fine-tune, DemCare-VLM, moves video dependence from -3.3 to +4.5 points, so what the benchmark exposes can be repaired and not only measured.
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.
Multimodal large language models have made rapid progress in video understanding, yet existing benchmarks largely rely on simple prompts and provide limited evidence about whether models can satisfy explicit output constraints. We introduce VCIFBench, a benchmark for evaluating complex instruction following in video understanding. VCIFBench constructs constraint-rich instructions from both benchmark-adapted and directly video-grounded prompts, covering content, format, style, and structure requirements, and evaluates model outputs with a hybrid verification pipeline. The benchmark contains 306 satisfiable test instructions, a 540-pair DPO preference dataset, and a 30-item conflict diagnostic subset. Experiments on 10 MLLMs show that joint constraint satisfaction remains challenging. We further show that DPO training on VCIFBench data can improve instruction-following performance.
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly used in industry VLM applications such as retrieval systems, content generation platforms, and decision-support workflows, where model selection is commonly guided by benchmark rankings. These rankings are largely determined by retrieval, captioning, and reasoning downstream tasks; however, models with similar task performance often show substantially different behavior across datasets. This creates a Capability-Reliability Gap between benchmark performance and observed model stability. We present ARGUS-EVAL, a capability-reliability-oriented evaluation framework for VLMs that characterizes model behavior through Benchmark Capability P(M), Cross-Dataset Consistency CDC(M), Robustness Retention RR(M), and Efficiency E(M). We evaluate CLIP, BLIP, LXMERT, Gemma-3-4B, and Qwen-2.5VL-3B-Instruct across retrieval, captioning, and reasoning downstream tasks. The results reveal notable differences between capability-oriented and reliability-oriented rankings. Qwen-2.5VL-3BInstruct achieves the strongest overall capability (R@1 = 82.7%, BLEU-4 = 47.2%, CIDEr = 141.6, CDC = 0.91), whereas CLIP records the lowest latency (31 ms) and memory footprint (0.9 GB).
Harsh Joshi, Gautam Siddharth Kashyap, Rafiq Ali +5