Ask About the Right Moment: Training-Free Object Identity Reasoning for Video-Language Models
Organizations: College of William & Mary · SparcAI Inc.
Abstract
Many questions about a video concern one physical object. Where does the ball end up after the cups are shuffled? Which card is the queen? How often was the mug covered? Video-language models (Video-LMs) recognise such objects in single frames but do not keep them apart over time. On real shell-game videos, open models from 8B to 235B parameters, their thinking variants, a reinforcement-learned tool agent and three training-free tool agents all stay within ten points of chance. We separate semantic identity binding from temporal identity maintenance. An object's identity should be fixed at a moment when the evidence for it is visible, and carried afterwards by a tracker. Track, Then Bind implements this principle without training. A promptable video tracker follows every candidate object and draws it with a track number. A frozen vision-language model answers a static question about the identifying evidence, which binds the target to a track. The answer is then derived from the tracked state in text, without asking the model to reinterpret the original video during read-out. A single configuration covers all benchmarks. With Qwen3-VL-32B it solves both VET-Bench tasks, where a fine-tuned trajectory model reaches 92% and 90% and the same VLM voting over 16 samples stays at 30--32%. It answers 55.4% of the hardest Perception Test cup games, where the best published model answers 41.5%, and, using track-derived timelines, 48.6% of TOC-Bench questions, against 37.1% for the same model answering directly. Drawing the same tracks on the video and asking the question directly falls 12--19 points short of the agent on real cup games.
Figures & tables
| Method | Type | VET cup | VET card | PT | PT-65 | TOC |
| Random | – | 33.3 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 30.3 |
| Closed Video-LMs (cited: VET and PT from [ 1 ] , TOC from [ 3 ] ) | ||||||
| Gemini-3-Pro [ 62 ] | direct answer | 40.0 | 34.0 | 36.5 | 30.8 | 43.9 ∗ |
| GLM-4.6V-Flash [ 64 ] | direct answer | 28.0 | 34.0 | 43.9 | 41.5 | – |
| Doubao-Seed-2.0-mini [ 65 ] | direct answer | 32.0 | 30.0 | 46.7 | 40.0 | – |
| GPT-5.5 [ 66 ] | direct answer | – | – | – | – | 47.1 ∗ |
| 8B | 32B | ||||
| Dimension | D | T | D | T | |
| event existence | 170 | 34.7 | 67.1 | 42.9 | 66.5 |
| reappear vs. disappear | 106 | 41.5 | 71.7 | 41.5 | 75.5 |
| relative spatial change | 131 | 24.4 | 51.9 | 31.3 | 52.7 |
| event count | 241 | 13.3 | 29.0 | 20.3 | 32.0 |
| event ordering | 89 | 12.4 | 27.0 | 13.5 | 32.6 |
| VLM | Baseline | cup | card | PT | TOC | Calls | Tokens |
| 8B | direct answer | 28.0 | 28.0 | 33.6 | 25.1 | 1 | 12k |
| self-consistency, as many calls | 28.0 | 30.0 | 46.7 | 25.9 | 16/12/13/11 | 157k | |
| direct answer, more input tokens | 24.0 | 30.0 | 27.1 | 24.7 | 1 | 34k | |
| Track, Then Bind | 100 | 100 | 51.4 | 43.0 | 19/12/13/11 | 25k | |
| 32B | direct answer | 32.0 | 38.0 | 35.5 | 37.1 | 1 | 12k |
| self-consistency, as many calls | 32.0 | 30.0 | 37.4 | 37.3 | 16/12/15/11 | 181k |
| Area | Direct | Track, Then Bind | ||
| physics | 689 | 60.1 | 64.0 | |
| semantics | 634 | 86.4 | 86.9 | |
| abstraction | 593 | 63.4 | 64.2 | |
| memory | 84 | 58.3 | 66.7 | |
| all | 2,000 | 69.3 | 71.5 | |
| Video-MME short | 900 | 78.7 | 78.1 |
| VLM | Variant | cup | card | PT |
| 8B | tracks drawn, question asked directly | 44.0 | 40.0 | 32.7 |
| bind question on the whole video | 100 | 100 | 53.3 | |
| facts read out with the video | 38.0 | 72.0 | 46.7 | |
| Track, Then Bind | 100 | 100 | 51.4 | |
| 32B | tracks drawn, question asked directly | 78.0 | 100 | 40.2 |
| bind question on the whole video | 72.0 | 100 | 54.2 |
| Test set | Bind clip | 8B | 32B | Frames |
| VET cup | located (hidden) | 100% (100) | 100% (100) | 12 |
| VET card | located (in view) | 100% (100) | 100% (100) | 6 |
| PT | located (hidden) | 20.6% (40.9) | 11.2% (33.3) | 12 |
| PT | whole video | 74.8% (55.0) | 81.3% (57.5) | 60 |
| PT | no binding | 4.7% (40.0) | 7.5% (25.0) | – |
| TOC | no binding | 100% (43.0) | 99.9% (48.7) | – |
| Accuracy | Calls | ||||||
| VLM | Configuration | cup | card | PT | TOC | PT | TOC |
| 8B | per benchmark | 100 | 100 | 44.9 | 43.4 | 20 | 20.2 |
| 8B | single | 100 | 100 | 51.4 | 43.0 | 13.4 | 10.8 |
| 32B | per benchmark | 100 | 100 | 50.5 | 48.0 | 20 | 22.7 |
| 32B | single | 100 | 100 | 52.3 | 48.6 | 14.7 | 11.1 |
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Step | Setting | Value |
| 1 Plan | video rate for the plan call | 2 fps |
| entities per plan | at most 3 | |
| 2 Perceive | grounding frames | 8 uniform, plus 8 in between for entities found on none |
| tracking resolution | 960 px on the long side | |
| first tracking pass | 6 fps, at most 900 frames | |
| dense pass triggers | instance IoU ; centre shift box widths per sampled frame; carriers not all tracked after 90% of the video |
| VLM calls | VLM tokens | Time (s) | |||||||||
| VLM | Set | video | frame | clip | text | all | in (k) | out | VLM | tracker | total |
| 8B | cup | 1.0 | 15.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 19.0 | 10.8 | 1058 | 40 | 69 | 110 |
| card | 1.0 | 8.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 12.0 | 7.3 | 987 | 37 | 64 | 103 | |
| PT | 1.1 | 9.3 | 1.0 | 1.9 | 13.4 | 24.7 | 1289 | 50 | 71 | 126 | |
| TOC | 2.1 | 7.8 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 10.8 | 15.3 | 443 | 18 | 14 | 35 | |
| 32B | cup | 1.0 | 15.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 19.0 | 10.8 | 984 | 91 | 62 | 154 |
| Benchmark | Split | Use | Videos | Questions | Duration | Source |
| VET-Bench cup | test | test | 50 | 50 | 12.4 | VET-Bench [ 1 ] (synthetic) |
| VET-Bench card | dev | dev | 56 | 56 | 12.1 | rendered with the VET-Bench generator |
| VET-Bench card | test | test | 50 | 50 | 12.1 | VET-Bench [ 1 ] (synthetic) |
| Perception Test cup games | validation | dev | 195 | 195 | 23.7 | Perception Test [ 2 ] |
| Perception Test cup games | PT | test | 107 | 107 | 15.6 | filtered by the VET-Bench authors |
| three cups, swap | PT-65 | test | 65 | 65 | – | subset of PT |
| Baseline | Engine | Input | Decoding |
| Qwen3-VL, direct | vLLM 0.15.1 [ 67 ] | PT and VET: video at 8 fps, default resizing of qwen-vl-utils; TOC: 32 uniform frames | greedy; 2,048 new tokens (TOC: the benchmark’s budget per format) |
| Qwen3-VL, direct | Transformers 4.57.6 | same | greedy |
| Self-consistency | vLLM | same | samples at temperature 0.7, top- 0.8, top- 20 (Qwen3-VL’s recommended settings), majority vote; equals the agent’s mean VLM calls, at most 16 |
| More input tokens | vLLM | PT and VET: 16 fps, at most 288,000 pixels per frame, no resizing; TOC: 96 frames | greedy |
| Qwen3-VL-Thinking | vLLM (VET, PT); TOC-Bench runner (TOC) | as the direct answer | greedy; 16,384 new tokens |
| Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B | vLLM, 8 GPUs | video at 8 fps | greedy; 2,048 new tokens |
| Set | Acc. (%) | VLM calls | Input tokens | Mask propagation (%) | Rerun after tool failure | |
| cup | 50 | 28.0 | 14.5 | 419k | 26 | 0 |
| card | 50 | 36.0 | 9.0 | 229k | 26 | 0 |
| PT | 107 | 26.2 | 17.7 | 508k | 77 | 12 |
| TOC | 1845 | 35.7 | 10.2 | 300k | 62 | 28 |
| VLM | Baseline | Set | Baseline (%) | Ours baseline [95% CI] | |
| 8B | Direct answer (vLLM) | cup | 28.0 | +72.0 [60.0, 84.0] | 0.001 |
| card | 28.0 | +72.0 [60.0, 84.0] | 0.001 | ||
| PT | 33.6 | +17.8 [3.7, 30.8] | 0.02 | ||
| TOC | 25.1 | +17.9 [15.4, 20.4] | 0.001 | ||
| Direct answer (Transformers) | cup | 22.0 | +78.0 [66.0, 88.0] | 0.001 | |
| card | 34.0 | +66.0 [52.0, 78.0] | 0.001 |
| Dimension | Direct | Thinking | SpatialClaw | VideoAgent | VideoINSTA | Ours | |
| event existence | 170 | 42.9 | 42.9 | 45.9 | 38.2 | 40.6 | 66.5 |
| reappear vs. disappear | 106 | 41.5 | 43.4 | 55.7 | 34.0 | 33.0 | 75.5 |
| relative spatial change | 131 | 31.3 | 33.6 | 29.8 | 26.7 | 29.0 | 52.7 |
| event count | 241 | 20.3 | 19.9 | 7.9 | 35.3 | 39.4 | 32.0 |
| event ordering | 89 | 13.5 | 23.6 | 16.9 | 13.5 | 14.6 | 32.6 |
| duration category | 245 | 31.0 | 24.9 | 29.0 | 26.1 | 31.4 | 36.7 |
| Subset | D 8B | Ours 8B | D 32B | SpatialClaw | Ours 32B | |
| 2 cups | 13 | 53.8 | 53.8 | 46.2 | 23.1 | 53.8 |
| 3 cups | 90 | 30.0 |
Video Reasoning
Video reasoning studies how AI systems use video evidence to infer events, actions, temporal relations, causes, and future states.
See all 207 papers