VideoReasonBench: Can MLLMs Perform Vision-Centric Complex Video Reasoning?
Fuente:
arXiv
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866914400720388096 |
|---|---|
| author | Liu, Yuanxin Ouyang, Kun Wu, Haoning Liu, Yi Sui, Lin Li, Xinhao Zhong, Yan Charles, Y. Zhou, Xinyu Sun, Xu |
| author_facet | Liu, Yuanxin Ouyang, Kun Wu, Haoning Liu, Yi Sui, Lin Li, Xinhao Zhong, Yan Charles, Y. Zhou, Xinyu Sun, Xu |
| contents | Recent studies have shown that long chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning can significantly enhance the performance of large language models (LLMs) on complex tasks. However, this benefit is yet to be demonstrated in the domain of video understanding, since most existing benchmarks lack the reasoning depth required to demonstrate the advantages of extended CoT chains. While recent efforts have proposed benchmarks aimed at video reasoning, the tasks are often knowledge-driven and do not rely heavily on visual content. To bridge this gap, we introduce VideoReasonBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate vision-centric, complex video reasoning. To ensure visual richness and high reasoning complexity, each video in VideoReasonBench depicts a sequence of fine-grained operations on a latent state that is only visible in part of the video. The questions evaluate three escalating levels of video reasoning skills: recalling observed visual information, inferring the content of latent states, and predicting information beyond the video. Under such task setting, models have to precisely recall multiple operations in the video, and perform step-by-step reasoning to get correct final answers for these questions. Using VideoReasonBench, we comprehensively evaluate 18 state-of-the-art multimodal LLMs (MLLMs), finding that most perform poorly on complex video reasoning -- e.g., GPT-4o achieves only 6.9% accuracy -- while the thinking-enhanced Gemini-2.5-Pro significantly outperforms others with 56.0% accuracy. Our investigations on "test-time scaling" further reveal that extended thinking budget, while offering none or minimal benefits on existing video benchmarks, is essential for improving the performance on VideoReasonBench. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2505_23359 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | VideoReasonBench: Can MLLMs Perform Vision-Centric Complex Video Reasoning? Liu, Yuanxin Ouyang, Kun Wu, Haoning Liu, Yi Sui, Lin Li, Xinhao Zhong, Yan Charles, Y. Zhou, Xinyu Sun, Xu Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Recent studies have shown that long chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning can significantly enhance the performance of large language models (LLMs) on complex tasks. However, this benefit is yet to be demonstrated in the domain of video understanding, since most existing benchmarks lack the reasoning depth required to demonstrate the advantages of extended CoT chains. While recent efforts have proposed benchmarks aimed at video reasoning, the tasks are often knowledge-driven and do not rely heavily on visual content. To bridge this gap, we introduce VideoReasonBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate vision-centric, complex video reasoning. To ensure visual richness and high reasoning complexity, each video in VideoReasonBench depicts a sequence of fine-grained operations on a latent state that is only visible in part of the video. The questions evaluate three escalating levels of video reasoning skills: recalling observed visual information, inferring the content of latent states, and predicting information beyond the video. Under such task setting, models have to precisely recall multiple operations in the video, and perform step-by-step reasoning to get correct final answers for these questions. Using VideoReasonBench, we comprehensively evaluate 18 state-of-the-art multimodal LLMs (MLLMs), finding that most perform poorly on complex video reasoning -- e.g., GPT-4o achieves only 6.9% accuracy -- while the thinking-enhanced Gemini-2.5-Pro significantly outperforms others with 56.0% accuracy. Our investigations on "test-time scaling" further reveal that extended thinking budget, while offering none or minimal benefits on existing video benchmarks, is essential for improving the performance on VideoReasonBench. |
| title | VideoReasonBench: Can MLLMs Perform Vision-Centric Complex Video Reasoning? |
| topic | Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.23359 |