Egocentric video understanding spans diverse capabilities, modalities, and evaluation formats, yet these are often studied in isolation despite their tight coupling in real-world interaction. We propose the Ego-Action-World interaction loop as a unifying principle: the wearer perceives the world, forms goals, acts, changes the world, and uses feedback to guide subsequent behavior. Based on this view, we introduce EgoOmniWorld, a benchmark organized around four complementary interaction structures: Node captures ego, action, and world states; Edge captures directed relations among them; Chain captures linked dependencies; and Loop captures feedback-closed interactions. We develop an interaction-first, evidence-grounded data pipeline that extracts structured interactions from egocentric videos, grounds them in visual and auditory evidence, and generates questions according to their interaction structure. Required modalities and single- or multi-turn formats follow naturally from the supporting evidence and dependencies. EgoOmniWorld contains 24,166 QA groups, including 20,284 training and 3,882 test samples. Experiments on representative open- and closed-source multimodal large language models reveal substantial and uneven limitations across interaction structures. Models trained on EgoOmniWorld improve in-domain interaction understanding and generalize to existing egocentric benchmarks. EgoOmniWorld provides a unified foundation for evaluating and advancing egocentric video understanding. Data, code, and models will be released.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: EgoOmniWorld unifies fragmented egocentric evaluation around the Ego–Action–World interaction loop, organizing questions into Node, Edge, Chain, and Loop structures.
Benchmark
Input
Node
Edge
Chain
Loop
Dialogue
EgoSchema
Video
A, W
A → E
∼
–
single-turn
EgoTempo
Video
A, W
E → A
∼
–
single-turn
EgoTaskQA
Video
E, A, W
A → E; A → W; W → A
∼
–
single-turn
EgoToM
Video
E, A
A → E
∼
–
single-turn
MultiHop-EgoQA
Video
A, W
–
∼
–
single-turn
EgoLifeQA
Video + Audio
E, A, W
W → E ; E → A
∼
–
single-turn
Table 1: Representative coverage of existing egocentric benchmarks under the EgoOmniWorld taxonomy. E, A, and W denote Ego, Action, and World; arrows indicate Edge directions. ✓ : explicit coverage; ∼ : related but not explicitly structured.
Figure 2: The EgoOmniWorld taxonomy. Left: an egocentric interaction loop. Middle: the Ego–Action–World structure, comprising three node states and six directed edge relations. Right: four complementary interaction structures, from Node to Loop, with example questions.
Figure 3: Overview of the proposed data engine. Given source egocentric videos, the four stages extract local Ego–Action–World interactions, ground them in multimodal evidence, aggregate episodes and link dependencies, and generate and validate evidence-grounded QA.
Figure 4: Dataset statistics and representative QA examples in EgoOmniWorld. Top: distributions of (a) clip duration, (b) interaction scopes, (c) Node and Edge semantic categories, (d) dialogue length, and (e) required evidence modality. Bottom: representative questions, answers, supporting evidence, and video frames illustrating individual states, directed relations, linked dependencies, and feedback-closed interactions. Each complete multi-turn dialogue counts as one QA group.
Model
Node
Edge
Chain
Loop
Overall
Closed-source models
Gemini 3.8 Flash
2.86/54.74
3.03/60.26
3.34/66.41
3.54/69.29
3.14/61.51
Qwen3.5-Omni-Plus
2.18/37.31
2.64/50.76
2.80/56.25
2.90/57.89
2.59/49.15
Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash
2.69/48.62
2.91/56.09
3.06/57.48
3.03/58.27
2.89/54.58
Open-source models
MiniCPM-o 2.6 8B
2.09/30.28
2.01/34.19
2.25/38.28
2.21/37.83
2.11/34.38
Table 2: In-domain performance on EgoOmniWorld. We report mean score (0–5) and accuracy (%) across the four interaction structures and overall.
Model
EgoSound
EgoToM
EgoTempo
VideoLLaMA2 7B AV
20.5
–
–
SALMONN2+ 7B
36.0
–
23.60
MiniCPM-o 2.6-8B
40.4
57.51
20.60
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B (Base)
31.33
55.95
20.40
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B + EgoOmniWorld-LoRA
39.41
58.22
24.80
Improvement
+8.08
+2.27
+4.40
Table 3: Cross-benchmark transfer accuracy (%) on existing egocentric benchmarks. Bold highlights the improved results within our base–LoRA pair. See Appendix E.2 for evaluation details.
Figure 5: Fine-grained cross-benchmark transfer analysis under the EgoOmniWorld taxonomy. We compare Qwen2.5-Omni-7B before (solid bars) and after (hatched bars) EgoOmniWorld LoRA adaptation on EgoSound, EgoToM, and EgoTempo. Colors distinguish benchmarks, and accuracy is computed on matched questions within each dataset–category group. Empty categories indicate no evaluated questions, and groups with fewer than three questions are omitted.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Level
Category
Train
Test
Total
Node
Ego State
1,911
345
2,256
Action Status
4,549
890
5,439
World State
1,966
365
2,331
Subtotal
8,426
1,600
10,026
Edge
Goal Planning
242
40
282
Intent Attribution
644
127
771
Appendix
Table 4: Sample counts by task category and split. A multi-turn dialogue counts as one QA group.
Figure 6: Representative QA examples in EgoOmniWorld. The figure contains two examples for each of Ego State, Action Status, World State, Goal Planning, Intent Attribution, Action Effects, Action Grounding, Intent Formation, and World Perception, together with two Chain and two Loop dialogues. Frames come from the corresponding dataset clips; timestamps are clip-relative. Displayed questions and answers are shortened for readability, and Chinese multi-turn examples are translated into English. Each complete dialogue counts as one QA group. The examples illustrate the annotations rather than establish exhaustive validation of their assigned categories.
Table 6: Original Ego4D clusters and selected source videos. Topic summaries are interpretive, not human-annotated activity classes.
Evidence type
Definition
Direct evidence
Evidence introduced and used in the current turn.
Inherited evidence
Evidence established in a preceding turn and still required by the current reasoning step.
New evidence
Additional evidence introduced in the current turn.
Appendix
Table 7: Evidence types in multi-turn QA.
Category
Query target and evidence requirements
Ego State
Characterize interaction-relevant attributes of the wearer.
Action Status
Describe actions that have been performed.
World State
Characterize object attributes, spatial configurations, locations, and world states.
Intent Attribution
Connect observed actions to evidence-supported goals or intentions; the expected answer must be supported by behavior, speech, task context, or other available evidence.
Action Effects
Connect performed actions to observed world changes; evidence must contain both the action and its resulting state.
Action Grounding
Characterize how the current environment or world state influences feasible behavior.
Appendix
Table 8: Semantic categories, query targets, and evidence requirements.
Level
Retention criteria
Failure cases
Node
A clearly identifiable target state or fact localized to an appropriate evidence interval. Attribute questions require explicit evidence for the queried attribute; historical questions require observations of the same tracked entity or ego trajectory.
Unclear targets, missing attribute evidence, or historical observations that cannot be associated with the same entity or ego trajectory.
Edge
Clearly defined relation endpoints, a specified task direction, and supporting evidence; forward causation is not required for every edge. Intent Attribution requires behavioral, linguistic, or contextual support for attributing intention from action; Action Effects requires observable state changes; Action Grounding requires specific environmental conditions affecting action feasibility; Intent Formation requires external conditions influencing later intentions or decisions; Goal Planning is evaluated using only evidence before the prediction cutoff; World Perception requires world-perception evidence available from the ego’s perspective.
Insufficient relation endpoints or category-specific supporting evidence.
Chain
Multiple necessary information-bearing components forming an open path without feedback closure. Dependency explanations and semantic review verify the contribution of earlier information.
Mere temporal adjacency, thematic similarity, or shared objects; earlier components do not contribute to the answer; a complete loop is actually required but the sample remains labeled Chain.
Loop
Evidence covers the original goal, relevant action, world change, and perceptual feedback, supporting the return of feedback to the ego to confirm, adjust, or update the original goal. The answer must integrate this closed connection.
Only action and outcome, or only feedback and a later action; missing goal linkage, outcome use, or confirmation evidence; success inferred from an action ending, or feedback adjustment inferred from temporal order alone.
Cross-loop
Satisfies closure requirements and includes necessary bridging facts and entity/state correspondences between loops. Earlier-loop information contributes to a later loop and the final answer.
Cross-stage state transfer without closure evidence; unclear inter-loop connections; removing an earlier loop still permits a complete answer.
Appendix
Table 9: Structural filtering criteria.
Level
Permitted repairs
Required constraints and rejection conditions
Node
Adjust overly specific state descriptions to the finest granularity supported by evidence; clarify references; correct modality labels or evidence bindings.
Reject the sample if the target attribute is entirely unobservable.
Edge
Intent Attribution: generalize unsupported specific intentions to evidence-supported goals. Action Effects: refocus on actual world-state changes. Action Grounding/Intent Formation: clarify external conditions and the behaviors or goals they influence. Goal Planning: restrict the answer to a next goal or action category supported by evidence before the prediction cutoff.
Preserve the original relation type and task direction. If the relation remains unsupported, reject rather than downgrade to a Node question.
Chain
Remove redundant components, clarify existing information transfer, and correct answer leakage or referential ambiguity.
Preserve an open path of multiple necessary components. Do not add unrelated events to lengthen the chain or invent feedback to turn it into a Loop. Reject or review if the repaired sample no longer meets its original category.
Loop
Narrow overstated claims and clarify existing evidence of goals, outcomes, checking, or feedback use.
Preserve goal–action–outcome–perceptual-feedback–goal-assessment closure. Do not invent confirmation, mental updates, or successful outcomes. Reject or review if closure evidence is missing.
Cross-loop
Clarify entity references, bridging facts, and existing feedback connections.
Preserve both closure and inter-loop dependencies. Reject or review when identity, state transfer, or closure cannot be verified; do not convert the sample into an open chain while retaining its label.
Appendix
Table 10: Permitted repairs and constraints.
Figure 7: Web interface for human review of EgoOmniWorld. The interface combines video playback with questions, reference answers, evidence intervals, and structural annotations, and provides controls for recording quality checks and suggested revisions. The screenshot illustrates the interface, not aggregate review outcomes.
Node
Edge
Model
Ego State
Action Status
World State
Goal Planning
Intent Attribution
Action Effects
Action Grounding
Intent Formation
World Perception
Closed-source models
Gemini 3.8 Flash
3.55 / 73.13
2.41 / 44.09
3.35 / 64.86
3.27 / 70.00
4.00 / 82.14
2.06/42.86
3.75 / 74.63
3.18 / 64.37
2.65 / 49.61
Qwen3.5-Omni-Plus
2.99/58.21
1.76/25.81
2.53/47.30
1.47/33.33
3.86/78.57
2.61 / 44.90
3.21/65.67
2.99/59.78
2.11/36.72
Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash
3.49/70.15
2.35/39.25
2.80/52.70
3.10/63.33
3.96/78.57
2.33/38.78
3.57/71.64
3.14/61.96
2.35/43.75
Open-source models
Appendix
Table 11: Test-set performance across the nine semantic categories. Cells show mean score / accuracy (%). Best scores and accuracies within each model group are bolded independently; ties are retained.
Original task category
Base
LoRA
Δ
EgoSound
Sound-source identification
15.58
36.92
+21.34
Spatial localization
25.88
37.00
+11.12
Sound characteristics
31.49
40.43
+8.94
Cross-modal reasoning
30.85
38.30
+7.45
Temporal information
28.44
32.24
+3.80
Appendix
Table 12: Transfer accuracy (%) by each benchmark’s original task categories for Qwen2.5-Omni-7B and its LoRA-adapted counterpart. Δ denotes the difference in percentage points, computed from displayed accuracies.
Egocentric video understanding requires procedural reasoning under partial observability and continuously shifting viewpoints. Current multimodal large language models (MLLMs) struggle with this setting, often generating plausible but visually inconsistent or weakly grounded responses. We introduce EgoVITA, a framework that decomposes egocentric video reasoning into a structured plan-then-verify process. The model first generates an egocentric plan: a causal sequence of anticipated actions from a first-person perspective. This plan is then evaluated by an exocentric verification stage that uses third-person reasoning over the same video to verify its spatiotemporal and logical consistency, without exocentric video input. This decomposition enables cross-perspective feedback without requiring paired ego-exo supervision. To train this reasoning process, we adopt Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with two dense reward signals: one that grounds anticipated actions in subsequent visual observations and another that reinforces consistent third-person verification. EgoVITA achieves state-of-the-art performance on egocentric reasoning benchmarks, outperforming Qwen2.5-VL-7B by +7.7 on EgoBlind and +4.4 on EgoOrient, while maintaining strong generalization on exocentric video tasks with only 52k training samples.
Video reasoning models are a core component of egocentric and embodied agents. However, standard benchmarks for assessing models provide only evaluation of the output (e.g. the answer to a question), without evaluation of intermediate reasoning steps, and most provide answers only in the text domain. We introduce Minerva-Ego, a benchmark for evaluating complex egocentric visual reasoning. We extend recent high-quality video data sources recorded from egocentric / embodied settings with a set of challenging, multi-step multimodal questions and spatiotemporally-dense human-annotated reasoning traces. Benchmarking experiments show that state-of-the-art models still have a large gap to human performance. To investigate this gap in detail, we annotate each reasoning trace in the dataset with the objects of interest required to solve the question, as spatiotemporal mask annotations. Through extensive evaluations, we identify that prompting frontier models with hints of 'where' and 'when' to look yields substantial improvements in performance. Minerva-Ego can be downloaded at https://github.com/google-deepmind/neptune.
The rapid development of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) has led to growing interest in egocentric video understanding, specifically the ability for MLLMs to recognize fine-grained hand-object interactions, track object state changes over time, and reason about manipulative processes in dynamic environments from a first-person perspective. However, existing egocentric video benchmarks suffer from limited grounded rationale evaluation, offering limited support for fine-grained operation-centric reasoning and rarely examining whether model rationales are grounded in explicit spatio-temporal evidence. To address this gap, we introduce EgoCoT-Bench, a fine-grained egocentric benchmark for grounded and verifiable operation-centric reasoning with explicit step-by-step rationale annotations. Overall, EgoCoT-Bench comprises 3,172 verifiable QA pairs over 351 egocentric videos separated into four task groups for a total of 12 sub-task groups, encompassing perception and retrospection, anticipation, and high-level reasoning. The benchmark is constructed through a spatio-temporal scene graphs (STSG) guided generation framework and is further refined by human annotators to ensure correctness, egocentric relevance and fine-grained quality. Experimental results show continuing difficulties with egocentric fine-grained reasoning and further reveal that many multimodal models produce explanations that are answer-correct, but have evidence that is inconsistent with the answer. We hope EgoCoT-Bench can serve as a useful testbed for grounded and verifiable reasoning in egocentric video understanding. Project page and supplementary materials are available at: https://dstardust.github.io/EgoCoT/.