Do Video-LLMs Actually Watch? Diagnosing Character-Tracking Failures in Long-Form Video
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Can a Video Large Language Model (Video-LLM) follow one person through a long video, keeping track of who they are well enough to report, in order, how their outfit changes across a full TV episode? Benchmarks increasingly score this kind of task, and the strongest open-source 7--8B models now reach 37--38% on InfiniBench's global appearance task, which asks exactly that. But does that score come from tracking the named character, or from something easier? We test this with a nine-condition diagnostic protocol applied to three architecturally distinct open-source Video-LLMs, with Gemini~2.5~Flash as a frontier reference, and find the accuracy does not come from character tracking. When we change the character named in the question to a different cast member, leaving the video and answer options untouched, the models change their answer only 4--31% of the time, so they are largely ignoring who the question asks about. Breaking that test down by the gender of the swapped name shows why: the models react more when the name is changed to a different-gender character than to a same-gender one (a 13--28 point gap), picking up coarse gender cues but unable to tell same-gender individuals apart. This shallow processing surfaces again when we drop the multiple-choice options and ask the same questions open-endedly: open-source accuracy drops 18--25 points, with none of 151 answers fully correct, versus a 12-point drop for Gemini. Further checks rule out the obvious innocent explanations, adding subtitles, using the most informative frames, or doubling the number of frames all leave character tracking unimproved, so the bottleneck is not how much video the model sees but how it ties that video to the person the question names. We release a diagnostic toolkit for auditing what such benchmark scores actually measure.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Jul 2026.
Builds on
10 of 18 references.
References · 10
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2025Qwen2.5-VL Technical Reportcited by 5,587
- 2025Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilitiescited by 3,796
- 2023Evaluating Object Hallucination in Large Vision-Language Modelscited by 1,729
- 2024Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluatorscited by 897
- 2023Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice Selectorscited by 486
- 2023What's "up" with vision-language models? Investigating their struggle with spatial reasoningcited by 254
- 2019TVQA+: Spatio-Temporal Grounding for Video Question Answeringcited by 154
- 2023Can I Trust Your Answer? Visually Grounded Video Question Answeringcited by 135
- 2024ChartInsights: Evaluating Multimodal Large Language Models for Low-Level Chart Question Answeringcited by 50
Built on by
Not cited yet.