RepProbe: Can Video Language Models Count Repeated Actions? A Diagnostic Benchmark

Large vision-language models (VLMs) can recognize what happens in video but fail to count how many times. We introduce PushupBench, 446 long-form clips (avg. 36.7s) for evaluating repetition counting. The best frontier model achieves 42.1% exact accuracy; open-source 4B models score $\sim$6%, matching supervised baselines. We show that accuracy alone misleads -- weaker models exploit the modal count rather than reason temporally. Fine-tuning on counting with 1k samples transfers to general video understanding: MVBench (+2.15), PerceptionTest (+1.88), TVBench (+4.54), suggesting counting is a proxy for broader temporal reasoning.PushupBench incorporated in lmms-eval (https://github.com/EvolvingLMMs-Lab/lmms-eval/pull/1262) and hosted on (pushupbench.com/)

Real-world video benchmarks provide broad coverage, but their fixed clips entangle event count, rate, duration, and visual complexity, making failure modes hard to isolate. While existing programmatic benchmarks offer better control, they score only the final answer rather than auditing reported events against executable ground truth. To bridge this gap, we introduce trace-grounded parametric profiling for event counting in three controlled video tasks: bouncing-ball wall contacts, visual blinks, and categorical state transitions. Across 2,190 videos, we vary event count N and frequency F while holding rendering fixed. Each video includes an executable event trace for capability-surface estimation and timestamp-level evaluation. Our results reveal a staged temporal failure. At an 80% reliability threshold, Gemini 3.6 Flash reliably counts persistent state transitions up to 12 events at 0.5 and 1.0 Hz, yet demonstrates no reliable positive-count region for transient blinking events. Thus, event representation dictates whether a model initially accesses evidence -- a limitation that compounds as count and frequency increase. In the high-count, high-frequency regime, only 0.2% of final counts are correct and the model recovers just 18.1% of true events. To test if visual access is the primary bottleneck, we increase sampling rate. Although this boosts Bounce Ball accuracy from 19.6% to 29.3%, the reported sequence agrees with ground truth only 3.7% of the time. Extra frames can therefore inflate final scores without producing faithful event recovery. Different prompting strategies yield similarly limited gains, and real-world video evaluations show the same concentration of success at low event counts. Ultimately, trace-grounded profiling shifts video evaluation from aggregate accuracy metrics to a detailed diagnostic of where temporal reasoning fails.

Object counting in videos remains a poorly characterized capability of multimodal large language models. Counting questions are included in many existing VideoQA benchmarks, but the ground-truth count distributions in these benchmarks are heavily skewed toward small values. Across the nine benchmarks we survey, the median ground-truth count is at most five, and the three most frequent values together account for between 45% and 93% of the videos. The resulting mean accuracy is then dominated by the most frequent counts; a value-dependent bias at a rare count contributes negligibly to the average and remains invisible. We introduce CountVideoBench, a benchmark of 2,600 synthetic videos covering 26 cardinalities in the interval [5, 50] (100 videos each), grouped into six clusters of consecutive counts that span the range while enabling near-neighbor comparisons. Each video contains a single class of static objects under a controlled camera motion, removing object motion and reducing recognition as confounds. We evaluate sixteen video-language models from nine architecture families in a zero-shot setting. No model exceeds 27.6% Exact Match. The dependence of accuracy on cardinality varies across models, ranging from monotonic decline to a non-monotonic peak-and-collapse pattern, which rules out increasing difficulty with cardinality as the dominant explanation of counting failure. Every model further concentrates its predictions on its own set of preferred integers, with accuracy peaks coinciding with these values and collapsing at adjacent counts. These findings highlight the need for balanced, diagnostic counting benchmarks to reliably assess this fundamental visual capability.