Can Motion-Language Models Ground Structure? STRIDE for Evaluating the Evaluators

Reliable evaluation of human motion understanding is fundamental to advancing embodied AI, robotics, and animation. However, existing benchmarks suffer from coarse semantic granularity, undifferentiated difficulty, limited annotation quality, and pervasive answer ambiguity, leaving them unable to diagnose where current models fail. To bridge this gap, we introduce NextMotionQA, a comprehensive benchmark that leverages vision-language models (VLMs) for semi-automated, expert-verified dataset. NextMotionQA features three complementary tasks: multiple-choice question answering, video captioning, and fine-grained error correction. Each task is systematically structured across three core semantic axes and stratified into three task complexity levels. Our extensive evaluation of twelve representative VLMs uncovers critical capability gaps and weakness that remain invisible under conventional, single-task evaluations. In a complementary direction, recent work has begun using VLMs as judges for text-to-motion evaluation; we ask whether they show the same degradation under harder tasks. We find that VLMs align strongly with expert ratings on coarse criteria (Cohen's κ=0.70) but break down on fine-grained, part-level judgment (κ=0.10), validating the paradigm in its strong regime while clarifying its limits.

Multi-modal large language models (MLLMs) have shown impressive generalization across tasks using images and text modalities. While their extension to video has enabled tasks such as video question answering and video captioning, their pixel-level visual grounding abilities are less studied. In this work, we raise the pertinent question of whether motion is used in pixel-level visual grounding and whether video MLLMs can segment objects based on natural language expressions describing their motion patterns. We identify the shortcomings in the current benchmarks, where we show that a single frame can often suffice for capturing the referring expression without any temporal reasoning. To address this, we introduce novel motion-centric probing, particularly designed for the visual grounding task, to study video MLLMs' ability to identify true motion from a fake one and their ability to grasp the ordering of motion. Consequently, we introduce MoCentric-Bench, a motion-centric benchmark designed to evaluate video MLLMs based on their ability to capture the interaction between motion and language, rather than relying primarily on static cues. We further establish strong single-image baselines that either match or surpass prior methods. Finally, we explore a simple motion-centric adaptation that provides state-of-the-art performance on our MoCentric-Bench. Code is available at https://msiam.github.io/PixFoundationSeries/.

Video large language models (Video-LLMs) are increasingly used as the perceptual front end of world models, a role that assumes they can read motion: how fast something moves, which way it travels, how hard it is pushed. We show they cannot. A Video-LLM can watch two clips of the same person in the same room, name every object in both, and still fail to say which clip moves faster. We introduce MotionBlind, a contrastive benchmark of self-recorded video for physically grounded motion(speed, magnitude, and direction), the variables a world model must predict. Each instance is a pair of near-identical clips that differ only in motion. Each clip carries two complementary yes/no questions, giving four items per instance, and a model earns credit only if all four are correct. We report Instance Accuracy(IAcc), which has a 6.25% chance floor. Single-frame, appearance, and language-only shortcuts all collapse to it. MotionBlind complements the recent TimeBlind benchmark. We run a controlled study of six open and two frontier Video-LLMs, varying whether the video is present, whether frames are shown in the correct temporal order, and how frames are sampled (1 to 24 frames, four selection strategies). Open models sit near the 6.25% floor, and scale does not help. Removing the video drops every model to zero IAcc, and shuffling frames collapses IAcc to chance, so the task genuinely needs video in order. Neither more frames nor smarter frame selection closes the gap, because these change which frames are seen, not whether motion is read. Only Gemini3.1 Pro clears the benchmark overall, and even it fails on speed. A frontend that cannot tell two speeds of the same action apart is not yet a trustworthy source of supervision, reward, or evaluation for a world model.