MotionBlind, a contrastive benchmark of self-recorded video for physically grounded motion, the variables a world model must predict, is introduced, a pair of near-identical clips that differ only in motion.
Abstract
Video large language models (Video-LLMs) are increasingly used as the perceptual front end of world models, a role that assumes they can read motion: how fast something moves, which way it travels, how hard it is pushed. We show they cannot. A Video-LLM can watch two clips of the same person in the same room, name every object in both, and still fail to say which clip moves faster. We introduce MotionBlind, a contrastive benchmark of self-recorded video for physically grounded motion(speed, magnitude, and direction), the variables a world model must predict. Each instance is a pair of near-identical clips that differ only in motion. Each clip carries two complementary yes/no questions, giving four items per instance, and a model earns credit only if all four are correct. We report Instance Accuracy(IAcc), which has a 6.25% chance floor. Single-frame, appearance, and language-only shortcuts all collapse to it. MotionBlind complements the recent TimeBlind benchmark. We run a controlled study of six open and two frontier Video-LLMs, varying whether the video is present, whether frames are shown in the correct temporal order, and how frames are sampled (1 to 24 frames, four selection strategies). Open models sit near the 6.25% floor, and scale does not help. Removing the video drops every model to zero IAcc, and shuffling frames collapses IAcc to chance, so the task genuinely needs video in order. Neither more frames nor smarter frame selection closes the gap, because these change which frames are seen, not whether motion is read. Only Gemini3.1 Pro clears the benchmark overall, and even it fails on speed. A frontend that cannot tell two speeds of the same action apart is not yet a trustworthy source of supervision, reward, or evaluation for a world model.
Video understanding is usually benchmarked on curated, single-actor, or professionally filmed clips, and a strong score there is routinely read as evidence a model is robust enough for deployment. Amateur team sport is a useful, largely untested place to check that assumption: over eight million students played a schoo...
Sai Varun Kodathala, Prashanth Pollishetty, J. Cargill· 0 citations
Temporal reasoning benchmarks for Video-LLMs are often mediated by language, leaving room for linguistic shortcuts from option wording, answer correlations, or language priors, so TempCloze is introduced, a video cloze benchmark for evaluating visual temporal reasoning in Video-LLMs.
Wenqi Pei, Henry Hengyuan Zhao, Yi-Lai Liu et al.· 0 citations
When asked which of two events came first, video large language models can fail in two opposite ways: cave to a false claim, or reject a true one. Prior video sycophancy work measures only the first and mitigates it by teaching the model to trust the user less, a fix known in text and image models to worsen the second....
Yu-Xin Cao, Wei Song, Jing-Ling Xue et al.· 0 citations
Seeing frames in order does not mean representing time. Modern VideoLMs receive ordered video streams, yet their main supervision acts on generated text rather than video-token representations where event dynamics should first emerge. This mismatch allows models to learn temporal answers from shortcuts such as objects,...
Yu-Meng Shi, Quanyu Long, Yin Wu et al.· 0 citations
LiveProBench is introduced, which evaluates models at one-second stream intervals without an explicit response cue, revealing a substantial gap in the temporal decision-making required for human-like interaction.
Kai-Xuan Du, Xin Wan, Hang Zhang et al.· 0 citations
This work conducts a large-scale evaluation of more than 20 recent MLLMs and shows that video instruction following remains challenging for current models, especially for instructions with many constraints, semantic constraints, or complex conditional structures that require selecting the correct branch or path based o...
Hongbo Liu, Peixian Chen, Siyuan Liu et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.