Comparing videos to assess their semantic similarity remains a challenging task for current Large Multimodal Models (LMMs), which are primarily trained with single-video objectives. While most prior works have focused on computing global similarity, recent studies have introduced the more challenging problem of concept-based similarity, which measures how similar two videos are with respect to specific concepts (e.g., activity, location). However, no dedicated approaches have yet leveraged LMMs to explicitly address this task. In this paper, we aim to fill this gap introducing Video Caption Entailment for video similarity estimation (VICE): a dual-branch design that leverages LMMs for cross-video reasoning. Each branch jointly processes one video and the caption of the other, measuring their alignment for a specific concept via video-language entailment. The outputs from both branches are fused to produce a final similarity score, along with a textual explanation of the model reasoning. This approach leverages the model's native single-video understanding while enabling fine-grained comparative reasoning between video and text. Experiments on ConViS-Bench and StepDiff show that VICE outperforms models that process both videos simultaneously, highlighting the promise of single-video reasoning for concept-based similarity estimation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Order sensitivity of Large Multimodal Models in video-pair understanding. Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) exhibit strong order dependence: swapping the order of videos in a pair leads to different predictions in approximately 25–30% of cases. In contrast, our method is order-invariant (0% change rate).
Figure 2: Overview of ViCE : Given a video pair (V1,V2) and a concept Ci , e.g., Ingredients , ViCE processes the videos through two parallel branches. Each branch generates a concept-conditioned caption (g1,g2) , then performs video–caption entailment by comparing one video with the caption of its counterpart. The branches produce reasoning traces inside <thinking>…</thinking> and similarity scores inside <score>…</score> . The final score s(V1,V2∣Ci) is averaged across both branches. For clarity, we omit visualizations of the reasoning trace summarization (Sec. 3.3 ), as it does not affect the predicted score and is used solely for interpretability.
Model
Main Action
Main Subjects
Main Objects
Location
Order of Actions
Avg.
LLaVA-OV-7B Li et al. (2025)
zero-shot
51.8
48.4
58.6
58.9
41.0
51.7
zero-shot CoT
39.9
28.6
28.3
44.1
28.0
33.8
ViCE
54.4
55.9
50.0
64.8
19.2
48.9
↓2.8
LLaVA-Video-7B Zhang et al. (2025)
zero-shot
44.2
39.8
45.8
56.0
41.2
45.4
Table 1: Correlation performance on ConViS-Bench Liberatori et al. (2025) . We apply ViCE to multiple LMMs, reporting Spearman’s ρ correlations with human judgment ( ×100 ).
Model
Technique
Tools/Equipment
Actions
Visuals
Ingredients
Avg.
LLaVA-OV-7B Li et al. (2025)
zero-shot
31.1
39.4
32.8
32.3
28.5
32.8
zero-shot CoT
29.5
35.3
29.4
25.3
24.1
28.7
ViCE
42.2
36.6
32.8
31.8
26.5
34.0
↑1.2
LLaVA-Video-7B Zhang et al. (2025)
zero-shot
30.6
37.4
28.9
29.2
17.5
28.7
Table 2: Correlation performance on StepDiff Nagarajan and Torresani (2024) . We apply ViCE to multiple LMMs, reporting Spearman’s ρ correlations with human judgment ( ×100 ).
Figure 3: Distributions of predicted scores across datasets and models. We compare zero-shot predictions, predictions with ViCE , and ground truths .
Figure 4: Distributions of predicted scores. We compare ViCE ’s predictions to the ground truth using LLaVA-Video-7B model as the LMM.
Figure 5: Example of a video pair with the captions and reasoning traces generated when conditioning on the target concept. Compared to the zero-shot baseline, ViCE produces scores that more closely align with the ground truth.
Model
Main Action
Main Subjects
Main Objects
Location
Order of Actions
Avg.
LLaVA-OV-7B Li et al. (2025)
Blind
53.4
38.5
42.9
47.0
8.1
38.0
ViCE w/o CoT
48.1
48.9
46.7
57.2
20.2
44.2
ViCE single branch
47.6
48.4
43.0
58.4
25.0
44.5
ViCE ( M=1 )
48.2
49.2
47.1
60.8
40.3
49.1
ViCE
54.4
55.9
50.0
64.8
19.2
48.9
Table 3: Ablation Studies on ConViS-Bench Liberatori et al. (2025) . We report Spearman’s ρ ( ×100 ).
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: User Study Interface: Annotators are asked to rank the descriptions or select the checkbox if none of them apply.
Figure 7: Qualitative results of ViCE : We present three example video pairs for two distinct concepts and datasets Liberatori et al. (2025) ; Nagarajan and Torresani (2024) , along with the captions and reasoning traces generated when conditioning on those concepts. Compared to the zero-shot baseline, ViCE produces scores that more closely align with the ground truth ones.
Model
1 st (%)
2 nd (%)
3 rd (%)
Qwen3-VL-8B Bai et al. (2025a)
38.34
24.87
36.79
LLaVA-Video-7B Zhang et al. (2025)
31.61
42.49
25.90
LLaVA-OV-7B Li et al. (2025)
29.53
33.16
37.31
Appendix
Table 4: User Study Results: We report the percentage of times each model’s explanation generated by ViCE with different LMMs (see Sec. 3.3 ) was ranked 1st, 2nd, or 3rd.
Method
Peak GPU Memory (GiB)
Time / Prediction (s)
Baseline (zero-shot)
17.5
2.5
VICE
22.4
5.8
Appendix
Table 5: Computational Cost: Peak GPU memory and wall-clock time per prediction for the zero-shot baseline and VICE using Qwen3-VL-8B on a single NVIDIA A100 GPU.
Recent advancements in chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning have shown promise in enhancing video understanding and reasoning capabilities of multimodal large language models (MLLMs). However, existing CoT-based MLLMs require labor-intensive CoT annotations and incur substantial training and inference overhead. While visual latent reasoning has emerged as a more efficient alternative, existing methods primarily focus on image tasks and heavily rely on additional supervision signals for visual latent generation (e.g., CoT traces, auxiliary images, or fine-grained annotations), limiting their scalability and transferability to video tasks. To bridge this gap, we introduce VideoLatent, a novel MLLM equipped with a latent injection module tailored for video understanding and reasoning. Specifically, VideoLatent learns to perform visual latent reasoning using a new latent self-forcing training paradigm, which comprises latent alignment and latent diversity objectives, and relies solely on standard video-question-answer triplets. Extensive experiments across 14 benchmarks demonstrate that our model consistently outperforms existing standard and latent MLLMs on general video understanding and complex video reasoning. Compared with Video-R1, our VideoLatent achieves superior computational efficiency, reducing training/inference overhead by ∼6×/∼68×. Moreover, experiments demonstrate that our method has strong generalizability to different MLLM backbones and different model scales.
Reasoning across videos requires aligning events, matching identities, comparing motion, and integrating partial observations. Evaluating these capabilities and testing how to improve them requires both reliable labels and targeted supervision. We introduce SYNCR, a simulator-grounded framework that connects these two needs through shared task generators. Built on Habitat, Kubric, and CLEVRER, SYNCR derives answers from environment state and provides 4,000 evaluation questions and 15,960 training questions over disjoint videos, spanning eight cross-video reasoning tasks. Visual ablations and human evaluation assess dependence on the supplied evidence and answer recoverability. Evaluation of 22 multimodal large language models reveals persistent difficulties in physical comparison and scene integration that increasing model size does not consistently resolve. Supervised fine-tuning raises Qwen3-VL-8B's average SYNCR accuracy from 32.6% to 61.6%, with gains extending to task configurations and video sources absent from training for those tasks. Transfer to real footage is most consistent for temporal ordering: accuracy improves by 9.0-20.5 percentage points on constructed Assembly101 and Panoptic ordering sets across three checkpoints spanning two model families and two model sizes, with additional gains on existing temporal reasoning benchmarks. These results establish SYNCR as a controlled setting for diagnosing cross-video reasoning failures, testing their learnability, and identifying where synthetic supervision transfers.
Sara Ghazanfari, Siddharth Garg, Prashanth Krishnamurthy +1
Chain-of-thought reasoning has substantially advanced video understanding in multimodal large language models (MLLMs). However, language-based reasoning traces do not provide a reliable mechanism for models to revisit relevant visual evidence, leading to visual forgetting and impairing their ability to reason over video content. Existing approaches maintain visual grounding during reasoning in two main ways: they either refer to evidence using textual coordinates, which specify symbolic locations rather than the visual content itself, or reinsert cropped regions or frames into the multimodal context, preserving visual details at the cost of substantial context expansion. To address these limitations, we introduce VideoLVR, which constructs latent visual evidence from local regions at relevant video moments, thereby providing visual support for intermediate reasoning steps. To supervise latent visual evidence generation, we introduce a visual token prediction objective that formulates visual token reconstruction as prediction over a vocabulary derived from the input video, thereby unifying visual evidence reconstruction and text generation within the same token prediction framework. This shared prediction framework enables MLLMs to reason over interleaved text tokens and latent visual states while integrating evidence from different moments. We further extend VideoLVR to reinforcement learning by treating sampled visual tokens as actions alongside text tokens and jointly optimizing the policy using final-answer rewards. By efficiently revisiting task-relevant visual information during reasoning, VideoLVR improves video understanding without substantially expanding the multimodal context. Experiments on multiple video benchmarks demonstrate its effectiveness, especially on tasks requiring fine-grained visual evidence.