Does Local Video Understanding Transfer Across Encounters? The EgoGears Benchmark
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Embodied systems must make knowledge acquired during one encounter usable in another despite changes in viewpoint, motion, and illumination. Yet aggregate cross-video accuracy conflates failures of lo...
arXiv:2609.09528v1 Announce Type: new 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: h...
SYNCR is a synthetic benchmark designed to evaluate multimodal large language models on cross‑video reasoning. It contains 4,000 question‑answer pairs across 4,827 unique videos, covering tasks in temporal alignment, spatial tracking, comparative reasoning, and holistic synthesis. The benchmark reveals a significant performance gap between current models and humans, with models excelling at temporal ordering but struggling with precise physical and spatial reasoning.
arXiv:2609.09396v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As Vision-Language Models (VLMs) advance toward physical deployment, the focus has remained on action-oriented Embodied AI evaluated on subject-centric...
arXiv:2609.28049v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Video understanding is usually benchmarked on curated, single-actor, or professionally filmed clips, and a strong score there is routinely read as ev...
OVO‑S‑Bench is a fully human‑annotated benchmark designed to evaluate streaming spatial intelligence in multimodal large language models (MLLMs). It contains 1,680 questions derived from 348 source videos, each with a query timestamp and evidence interval, and tests models on four levels of abstraction: instantaneous egocentric perception, spatiotemporal context tracking, generative spatial reasoning, and allocentric spatial mapping. Across 38 MLLMs, Gemini‑3.1‑Pro scored 59.2 versus 92.2 for human experts, with allocentric spatial mapping identified as the main challenge, and the benchmark reveals that chain‑of‑thought reasoning can worsen spatial errors when not grounded in the stream.