AIarXiv
Ranked by formulaVerdict: NotableOmniCompass: A Holistic Benchmark for Omni-Modal Video Grounding and Understanding
With the rapid development of multimodal large language models (MLLMs), evaluating their video understanding capabilities has become increasingly important.
Caveats
- Preprint; not yet peer reviewed.
VerdictWorth a reader's time today.
Abstract
With the rapid development of multimodal large language models (MLLMs), evaluating their video understanding capabilities has become increasingly important. Existing video understanding benchmarks cover only part of the evaluation dimensions, limiting systematic diagnosis of omni-modal video understanding. We introduce OmniCompass, a holistic benchmark for omni-modal video grounding and understanding. OmniCompass defines two evaluation tracks: OmniCompass-VL assesses vision-language models on tasks requiring visual evidence, while OmniCompass-AV assesses omni-modal models on tasks requiring joint audio-visual evidence. Each track includes three complementary tasks: temporal grounding (TG), spatial grounding (SG), and question answering (QA), assessing when a referenced target appears, where it is, and what happens. QA covers five perception and three reasoning categories in OmniCompass-VL, and three perception and two reasoning categories in OmniCompass-AV. OmniCompass-VL contains 820 videos and 2,460 instances across domains and three duration types: short, medium, and long. A narrative- and audio-rich subset forms OmniCompass-AV with 240 videos and 720 instances. Each instance is evaluated under two paired settings: text-only and text+image, specifying the same target through text and visual-language guidance. All instances are manually annotated with multi-round quality verification. Evaluations of 50 MLLMs show that open-source models still lag behind proprietary counterparts, particularly in audio-visual understanding. Precise temporal and spatial grounding remains challenging even for leading models, and their predictions still exhibit inconsistencies across the paired target specifications.
The editor's rubric
| Dimension | Level | Weight | What that level means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leverage | ████░ 4 | 24% | A general-purpose tool used across several fields (Adam, ResNet, LoRA, next-generation sequencing). |
| Magnitude | ██░░░ 2 | 18% | Solid incremental gain on a meaningful problem. |
| Evidence | ███░░ 3 | 14% | Solid: multiple benchmarks or cohorts, ablations, fair baselines, released code or data. |
| Novelty | ██░░░ 2 | 16% | A new combination of known ideas. |
| Trajectory | ██░░░ 2 | 18% | Some room to improve with obvious engineering. |
| Stakes | ██░░░ 2 | 10% | Benefits a professional community (practitioners, clinicians, engineers). |
Editor’s rationale
Heuristic triage from title and abstract text only, not a reading of the paper. Cues found: method (we propose); breadth (many tasks); verification (error bars, multiple benchmarks, code released); stakes (general AI).
How the score was computed
- Merit
- 5.2 / 10
- Adjusted merit
- 4.5 / 10
- Attention
- 84%
- Freshness
- 51%
- Hugging Face upvotes61 (reference 25, via hf-daily, Oct 16, 2026, 04:14 UTC)
- GitHub stars54 (reference 250, via hf-daily, Oct 16, 2026, 03:07 UTC)