Existing temporal video grounding (TVG) benchmarks primarily focus on localizing target video segments according to descriptive text queries of the visual content. However, real-world queries are more diverse and often require the model to first understand the user's intent before localization, such as finding visual evidence, identifying the cause of an event, or recalling a remembered moment, yet such queries remain largely overlooked. To mitigate this gap, we introduce RVG-Bench, a benchmark for reasoning-driven audio-visual temporal grounding, where every query is constructed such that the target segment can only be identified through reasoning about the query's underlying intent. We carefully construct the benchmark and rigorously verify its data quality to ensure models truly comprehend the audio-visual content. RVG-Bench comprises 1,255 videos and 1,890 query-interval pairs across eight reasoning types. We evaluate 22 models and find that the strongest, Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash, achieves only 49.6 mIoU. Through a series of controlled analyses, including oracle-grounding probes and test-time scaling experiments, we systematically examine where and why current models struggle, providing insights for future model development.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: From descriptive grounding to reasoning-driven grounding. Left: Traditional TVG queries directly describe the target segment, making localization largely solvable via cross-modal semantic matching. Right: RVG-Bench uses indirect, intent-driven queries that require reasoning to infer the correct target interval, such as identifying the causal event that leads to a later outcome, and often rely on both visual and audio evidence.
Major Category
Sub- category
Definition
Intrinsic Attribute
Char
Identify a segment through a character’s implicit mental state or behavioral pattern.
Anom
Locate a segment that deviates from the expected norm of surrounding context.
Symb
Interpret abstract or metaphorical meaning to identify the target.
Relative Attribute
Comp
Select a segment by comparing a measurable property across candidates.
Ord
Locate a segment by its position in a sequence.
Relational
Caus
Trace from an effect to its cause, or vice versa.
Table 1: Compact reasoning taxonomy of RVG-Bench. Each subcategory is defined by how the query indirectly specifies the target. Complete definitions and example queries are provided in Appendix 0.A.2 .
Figure 2: Overview of the RVG-Bench construction pipeline: (1) broad query proposal via multi-view captions; (2) rigorous quality filtering and target interval refinement using frontier MLLMs; (3) difficulty-aware sampling; and (4) full human validation with low-quality sample removal, question rewriting, and GT boundary refinement.
Table 2: Main results on RVG-Bench. Input denotes visual (V) or audio-visual (AV) input. S-Step and M-Step denote single- and multi-step reasoning. Except for [email protected] , all numbers are mIoU percentages. Overall scores are sample-count-weighted. Additional recall results appear in Table 12 .
Model
Vis-Req
Aud-Req
Both-Req
ChronusOmni
25.6 → 23.8
23.7 → 18.2
21.1 → 18.3
Gemini-3-Pro
44.0 → 46.2
53.1 → 24.9
42.5 → 33.7
Qwen3-Omni
8.8 → 10.9
15.9 → 10.0
11.2 → 10.2
Table 3: Compact modality ablation on RVG-Bench. Entries show A+V → V-only mIoU over all single- and multi-step queries in the evaluation subset.
Figure 3: Compact results for representative model-analysis settings. In (a), subscripts denote Ground − Default. Complete Oracle-grounding and task-decomposition results are reported in Tabs. 10 and 11 .
Appendix figures & tables18 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Benchmark
#Videos
Avg. len (s)
#Queries
Audio
Rel
Attr
Multi-step
Charades-STA [ 24 ]
1,334
29.5
3,720
✗
✗
✗
✗
ActivityNet Caps [ 17 ]
4,885
118.1
17K
✗
✗
✗
✗
QVHighlights [ 18 ]
1,529
149.6
1,542
✗
✗
✗
✗
LongVALE [ 11 ]
1,171
235.0
14K
✓
✗
✗
✗
ChronusAV [ 7 ]
2,000
226.0
12K
✓
✗
✗
✗
ToTG-Bench [ 20 ]
–
–
–
✗
✓
✗
✗
Appendix
Table 4: Comparison with representative TVG benchmarks. For datasets that provide both training and test splits, we report statistics on the test split only . Audio indicates whether queries require audio information. Rel indicates relation reasoning. Attr indicates attribute reasoning, including both intrinsic attributes and relative attributes. Multi-step indicates whether the benchmark contains multi-step reasoning queries. The symbol “–” indicates that the specific statistics are neither reported in their original paper nor available because the dataset is not open source.
Major Category
Sub- category
Entry
Content
Intrinsic Attribute
Char
Definition
Identify a segment through a character’s implicit mental state or behavioral pattern.
Example
“Which segment shows the girl’s hesitation?”
Anom
Definition
Locate a segment that deviates from the expected norm of surrounding context.
Example
“Locate the abnormal moment.”
Symb
Definition
Interpret abstract or metaphorical meaning to identify the target.
Example
“Locate the scene that symbolizes freedom.”
Appendix
Table 5: Full reasoning taxonomy of RVG-Bench. Each subcategory is presented in two rows: one defining how the query indirectly specifies the target and one providing an example query. Subcategory abbreviations follow Tab. 1 .
Figure 4: Statistics of RVG-Bench, including video duration, ground-truth (GT) interval length, reasoning-category distribution with required modality, and normalized temporal distributions of the center, start, and end points of GT intervals.
Figure 5: Screenshot of our human validation interface. Annotators can flag six issue types: Category Requirement Violation , Factual Inconsistency , Inaccurate Answer or Time , Shortcut in Question , Answer Not Localizable , and Answer Not Unique . For reporting, category violations and factual inconsistencies are assessed under Logical soundness ; answer correctness and localizability under Answerability ; shortcuts under No information leakage ; and non-unique targets under Uniqueness . Temporal-boundary refinements are recorded separately. Issue types may overlap.
Criterion / outcome
Count
Rate
Initial criterion-wise assessment ( n=2,500 )
Answerability
2,091
83.64%
Uniqueness
2,447
97.88%
Logical soundness
2,045
81.80%
No information leakage
2,480
99.20%
Final selection ( n=2,500 )
Appendix
Table 6: Initial criterion-wise pass rates and final validation outcomes. Counts in the first block denote passed samples. The denominator for each block is shown explicitly.
Reference
N
mIoU
@0.3
@0.5
@0.7
Human baseline (vs. GT)
200
65.3
78.5
74.0
55.5
Human–human agreement
200
73.7
80.0
77.5
60.0
Appendix
Table 7: Human temporal-grounding results on the 200-example double-annotated audit subset. The human baseline averages the two annotators’ IoU with GT per query. Human–human agreement compares the two annotators directly. All metric values are percentages.
Figure 6: Examples of Relational reasoning. The figure encompasses three cases covering the Causal , Sequential , and Referential subcategories. Success in these tasks hinges on the model’s ability to navigate structured dependencies within the video.
Figure 7: Examples of Intrinsic-attribute reasoning. The figure includes three distinct cases corresponding to the Character-centric , Contextual Anomaly , and Symbolic subcategories. Models must reason over the implicit meaning or context of the video segments rather than observable surface features.
Figure 8: Examples of Relative-attribute reasoning. The two cases represent the Comparative and Ordinal subcategories, requiring the model to evaluate and rank multiple candidate segments across the entire video timeline.
Figure 9: An example of Multi-step reasoning. The model first uses Causal reasoning to infer the supernatural duplication mechanism, then detects a Contextual Anomaly when the protagonist discovers that it has failed to produce the expected result for her husband. The target is the moment when she discovers the empty closet.
Benchmark
Gemini
TimeLens-8B
Gap (pts)
Rel. gap
Charades-TimeLens [ 35 ]
52.8
55.2
−2.4
−4.3%
ActivityNet-TimeLens [ 35 ]
58.1
53.2
+4.9
+9.2%
QVHighlights-TimeLens [ 35 ]
70.4
65.5
+4.9
+7.5%
RVG-Bench
44.4
30.1
+14.3
+47.5%
Appendix
Table 8: Comparison of reported results on TimeLens-optimized benchmarks from [ 35 ] with RVG-Bench. Gemini denotes Gemini-2.5-Pro for the first three benchmarks and Gemini-3-Pro for RVG-Bench. Gap (pts) reports the mIoU difference (Gemini minus TimeLens-8B) in percentage points. Rel. gap expresses this difference as a percentage of the TimeLens-8B score.
Model
Input
Traditional
RVG-Bench
Charades-TimeLens
Subset by Required Modality
Overall
Overall
Vis-Req
Aud-Req
Both-Req
ChronusOmni
A+V
44.1
25.6
23.7
21.1
23.4
V-only
41.5
23.8
18.2
18.3
20.8
A-only
19.1
12.0
16.6
16.6
14.5
Gemini-3-Pro
A+V
52.7
44.0
53.1
42.5
44.4
Appendix
Table 9: Modality ablation results on the traditional TVG benchmark Charades-TimeLens and RVG-Bench. We report mIoU under the A+V, V-only, and A-only input settings. RVG-Bench results cover all single- and multi-step queries in the evaluation subset and are further divided into the Vis-Req, Aud-Req, and Both-Req subsets, along with the overall score.
Model
S-Step
M-Step
Overall
Default
Ground
Default
Ground
Default
Ground
Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash
51.3
60.7
40.6
50.8
49.6
59.1 +9.5
Seed2.0-Lite
49.0
59.8
36.9
46.3
47.0
57.6 +10.6
Gemini-3-Pro
46.1
65.7
35.8
54.7
44.4
63.9 +19.5
Seed2.0-Pro
42.6
57.7
38.0
51.0
41.9
56.6 +14.7
GPT-5.5
39.5
56.4
32.8
40.5
38.5
53.6 +15.1
Appendix
Table 10: Default and oracle-grounding mIoU. Ground subscripts under Overall denote gains over Default. The final row is the unweighted mean across the 22 listed models.
Model
S-Step
M-Step
Overall
Direct
CoT
2-step
Direct
CoT
2-step
Direct
CoT
2-step
Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash
48.8
51.3
46.0
37.4
40.6
37.4
47.0
49.6
44.6
Seed2.0-Lite
48.2
49.0
46.4
38.3
36.9
37.7
46.5
47.0
44.9
Gemini-3-Pro
44.1
46.1
51.1
39.0
35.8
43.2
43.2
44.4
49.8
Seed2.0-Pro
42.9
42.6
42.1
38.0
38.0
36.2
42.1
41.9
41.1
GPT-5.5
38.6
39.5
38.9
36.8
32.8
36.4
38.4
38.5
38.6
Appendix
Table 11: mIoU under Direct, CoT, and 2-step prompting on matched queries within each model. The final row is the unweighted mean across the 15 listed models.
Figure 10: Best-of- N self-verification on the full evaluation set, where N is the number of candidate predictions per query. The N=1 scores match the CoT results in Tab. 2 .
Evaluated model
U
P
R
L
Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash
3.2
13.8
16.9
34.6
Qwen3.8-Flash
2.2
20.9
24.9
33.2
Seed2.0-Lite
7.0
16.7
22.5
38.6
Seed2.0-Pro
5.9
15.5
28.9
29.0
Appendix
Table 13: Error-label frequencies (%) assigned by GPT-5.5 to default-CoT responses. U/P/R/L denote understanding, perception, reasoning, and localization.
Evaluated model
Agreement (%)
κ
Gemini-3-Pro
80.11
0.704
Qwen3-VL-8B
70.03
0.600
Appendix
Table 14: Agreement between Gemini-3-Pro and GPT-5.5 on primary diagnostic labels across CoT, oracle grounding, and 2-step prediction. Labels comprise four error types and no error ; κ is Cohen’s kappa.
Omni LLMs can naturally locate key audio and visual evidence and integrate information across modalities for audiovisual reasoning. Existing audio-visual reasoning benchmarks that mainly rely on multiple-choice questions usually score models solely based on answer correctness, making it difficult to assess whether a model truly forms a reasoning chain from evidence to the correct answer. In addition, textual or unimodal shortcuts may allow models to answer correctly without analyzing the necessary audio-visual evidence, further weakening the reliability of evaluation benchmarks. To address these issues, we introduce EvaOmni, an evidence-grounded benchmark containing 392 videos and 1,027 purely human-annotated question-answer pairs, covering 15 capabilities and three levels: retrieval and localization, basic understanding, and complex reasoning. We design a series of rigorous annotation procedures in which experts annotate audio and visual evidence and construct video-based distractors; humans review whether questions meet strict inspection criteria, and finally models filter textual and unimodal shortcuts. Beyond high-quality question-answer pairs, we require models to simultaneously return the answer and supporting evidence intervals in order to evaluate the complete reasoning chain. We propose the Coverage Grounded Score (C.G.) to measure how much annotated evidence a model identifies, and the Bottleneck Grounded Score (B.G.) to penalize poor temporal localization in either modality; both are incorporated into answer correctness. Across 7 open-weight and 17 proprietary Omni LLMs, Gemini3.7-Flash achieved the highest overall accuracy (79.4%), C.G. (70.8%), and B.G. (35.1%). At Level 3, it reached 79.1% accuracy, but its B.G. was only 12.3%. These results show that even the most advanced models still have room for development in grounded audio-visual reasoning.
Xiaoxing Hu, Wenxi Yao, Chaoyuan Shi +17
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Shanghai Innnovation Institute · Inner Mongolia University of Technology +8
Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in video temporal grounding with reinforcement learning for generating reasoning paths. However, existing models often produce superficial reasoning, which offers limited guidance for precise temporal localization. This limitation stems from (1) inefficient random exploration and (2) reward functions that focus solely on the answer correctness while ignoring reasoning quality. To address these issues, we propose TaRO (Temporal-Aware Reasoning Optimization), a framework that explicitly enhances the model's ability of thinking with time. First, we introduce a Constructive Reasoning Exploration that leverages pre-generated dense captions to construct reasoning paths grounded in explicit visual cues and timestamps, enabling efficient exploration of high-quality time-aware reasoning. Second, to evaluate reasoning quality, we design a Temporal-Sensitivity Reward. High-quality reasoning should be anchored to specific events and timestamps. If the event boundary under thinking is disrupted, such reasoning should become invalid, leading to a drop in the logit of the reasoning path. We utilize this drop as a critique of reasoning quality. Finally, TaRO follows a progressive curriculum, which starts by utilizing this reward to select better constructed reasoning paths, and evolves to a free exploration phase where the model autonomously generates effective reasoning. Experiments demonstrate that TaRO achieves state-of-the-art performance on VTG benchmarks. Code is available at https://github.com/oceanflowlab/TaRO.
Minghang Zheng, Zihao Yin, Yi Yang +2
Wangxuan Institute of Computer Technology, Peking University · Central Media Technology Institute, Huawei Technologies Ltd. · State Key Laboratory of General Artificial Intelligence, Peking University.
Multimodal Large Language Models have demonstrated impressive video understanding, yet their ability to reason over long-form narratives is often masked by visual-centric evaluations and inefficient context processing. Existing benchmarks over-rely on visual heuristics while marginalizing auditory cues, effectively reducing models to "silent observers" that bypass genuine cross-modal reasoning. Moreover, standard dense sampling creates an evidence-context trade-off: increasing frames to capture evidence inevitably leads to attention distraction and token explosion. To bridge these gaps, we present Video-HolmesV2, a novel benchmark designed for Deep Audio-Visual Coupling. Unlike previous works, it enforces an Evidence-Based Evaluation, requiring models to justify answers with precise spatio-temporal audio-visual evidence, thereby reducing confounding effects of guessing and hallucinated evidence. To support this, we introduce: (1) a Multi-Model Cross-Verification pipeline to ensure task rigor; (2) a Spatio-temporal Evidence-Aware Metric for fine-grained calibration. Furthermore, we propose an Audio-Text Guided Token Compression framework. By fusing task intent with auditory anchors, our method distills high-value reasoning cues to mitigate long-context noise. In our evaluation, even strong proprietary models achieve below 60% accuracy, while our approach outperforms comparable open-source omni-models.
Zhaoyang Wei, Zipeng Wang, Yushe Cao +10
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, China · Tsinghua University, China · Tencent, China