A Shortcut-aware Video-QA Benchmark for Physical Understanding via Minimal Video Pairs
Open accessAbstract
Existing benchmarks for assessing the spatio-temporal understanding and reasoning abilities of video language models are susceptible to score inflation due to the presence of shortcut solutions based on superficial visual or textual cues. This paper mitigates the challenges in accurately assessing model performance by introducing the Minimal Video Pairs (MVP) benchmark, a simple shortcut-aware video QA benchmark for assessing the physical understanding of video language models. The benchmark is comprised of 55K high-quality multiple-choice video QA examples focusing on physical world understanding. Examples are curated from nine video data sources, spanning first-person egocentric and exocentric videos, robotic interaction data, and cognitive science intuitive physics benchmarks. To mitigate shortcut solutions that rely on superficial visual or textual cues and biases, each sample in MVP has a minimal-change pair -- a visually similar video accompanied by an identical question but an opposing answer. To answer a question correctly, a model must provide correct answers for both examples in the minimal-change pair; as such, models that solely rely on visual or textual biases would achieve below random performance. Human performance on MVP is 92.9\%, while the best open-source state-of-the-art video-language model achieves 40.2\% compared to random performance at 25\%.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Vision language models are blind: Failing to translate detailed visual features into words
Rahmanzadehgervi, P., Bolton, L., Taesiri, M. R., & Nguyen, A. T. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.06581 · cited 1×
“VLMs are shown to be imprecise at spatial information understanding and geometry (Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024; Kamath et al., 2023).”
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
V-JEPA 2: Self-Supervised Video Models Enable Understanding, Prediction and Planning
Assran, M., Bardes, A., Fan, D., Garrido, Q., Howes, R., Mojtaba, Komeili, Muckley, M., Rizvi, A., Roberts, C., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.09985 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
“Additionally, we evaluate on the MVP dataset (Krojer et al., 2024) for physical world understanding, which utilizes a minimal-video pair evaluation framework to mitigate text and appearance biases.”
Self-citation
- Authors
- Krojer, B., Komeili, M., Ross, C., Garrido, Q., Sinha, K., Ballas, N., & Assran, M.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2506.09987
- OpenAlex
- W4417309012
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Human Pose and Action Recognition
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robot Manipulation and Learning
- Keywords
- video question answering, video-language models, benchmark, spatio-temporal reasoning, egocentric video, intuitive physics, score inflation, multiple-choice questions
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review