Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

This paper introduces EgoIntent, a benchmark of 3,014 pre-outcome micro-steps from egocentric videos annotated for what, why, and next; the best of 15 models scores only 33.31, showing step-level intent understanding is far from solved.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 05:47 UTC pith:BADAZNHF

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful step-level intent benchmark, but the abstract over-claims controlled-study findings that aren't in the text, and the LLM judge needs validation. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2603.12147 v2 pith:BADAZNHF submitted 2026-03-12 cs.CV

EgoIntent: A Pre-Outcome Micro-Step Benchmark for Understanding What, Why, and Next

Ye Pan , Chi Kit Wong , Yuanhuiyi Lyu , Hanqian Li , Chenfei Liao , Jiahao Huo , Lutao Jiang , Zixin Zhang
show 3 more authors
Jiacheng Chen Yuqian Fu Xu Zheng
This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords egocentric videointent understandingstep-level benchmarkmultimodal LLM evaluationnext-step predictiontemporal truncationprocedural activityvideo understanding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper is trying to establish that step-level intent understanding in egocentric video — inferring what a person is doing, why, and what they will do next from a short clip cut off before the outcome is visible — is a distinct, measurable capability that current multimodal large language models largely lack. It introduces EgoIntent, a benchmark of 3,014 manually annotated micro-steps from 32 day-in-the-life videos, each truncated before the step's key outcome to force genuine anticipation rather than recognition. The central result is a ceiling: the best of 15 models averages 33.31 across the three intent dimensions, and controlled ablations suggest models lean on static boundary cues rather than temporal order or procedural history. A sympathetic reader would care because proactive assistants, robotic imitation, and augmented-reality guidance all require exactly this kind of pre-outcome intent inference.

Core claim

EgoIntent is a step-level benchmark that asks models to infer three complementary dimensions of intent from a short egocentric clip of a procedural activity: local intent (What — the actor's immediate goal), global intent (Why — the step's role in the overall procedure), and next-step plan (Next — the most likely following action). The benchmark's central design choice is pre-outcome truncation: each of its 3,014 micro-steps is manually cut so the clip ends just before the step's key outcome becomes visible, and frames from later steps are removed, so the model cannot simply recognize a completed state. On this benchmark, 15 multimodal large language models, scored by an LLM-based semantic-c

What carries the argument

The load-bearing design is the temporal truncation mechanism: each queried step's clip is manually anchored so it ends immediately before the step's key outcome (e.g., contact, grasp, completion) is visible, and excludes all frames from subsequent steps. This converts the task from post-hoc recognition into anticipatory inference, forcing the model to work from pre-outcome cues such as hand-object interaction, scene context, and action tendency. The second component is the three-dimensional annotation ontology — local intent, global intent, and next-step plan — which defines the answer space and distinguishes immediate goals from procedural function and forward prediction. Evaluation is open

Load-bearing premise

Every reported score and ranking depends on an LLM-based semantic-consistency evaluator that is never validated against human judgments, so if that judge is biased, noisy, or insensitive to intent-specific distinctions, the paper's quantitative conclusions could change.

What would settle it

Run 100–200 EgoIntent samples through both the paper's LLM evaluator and a panel of human annotators scoring the same model outputs for semantic consistency with the reference labels; compute correlation and compare the model rankings. If human-model agreement is low or the top models change order, the central numbers are not robust. A cheaper proxy: re-score the same outputs with a different LLM judge and check whether rankings flip.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If EgoIntent scores reflect genuine capability, current multimodal LLMs are far from reliable step-level intent inference in egocentric video: the best model scores roughly one third of the possible points.
  • Global intent is the easiest dimension and next-step plan the hardest, so forward prediction is the critical bottleneck for proactive assistants that must anticipate the user's next action.
  • The single-boundary-frame result implies that benchmarks without strict pre-outcome truncation may overestimate model reasoning ability, because models can latch onto outcome cues rather than infer intent.
  • Adding procedural history hurt most models, suggesting current architectures do not effectively integrate longer context and may even be distracted by it.
  • Revealing the current outcome boosts Local Intent by 7.81 points and revealing the following step boosts Next-Plan by 13.17 points, quantifying how much models depend on leakage when it is present.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The abstract's phrasing that models achieve 'strong intent-prediction scores through static boundary cues' overstates the evidence: the absolute scores are low, and the controlled studies show relative reliance on boundary cues, not that the scores are strong; a fair reading is that models weakly exploit boundary cues but still perform poorly overall.
  • Because the LLM-based evaluator is unvalidated — no prompt details, no temperature, no human-agreement check, no error bars — the absolute numbers and model rankings are point estimates; a human scoring study on a subset would calibrate them.
  • The truncation review found 94.3% of sampled labels supportable, meaning a small share of instances may still leak outcome information; flagging or filtering those instances would strengthen the benchmark's cleanliness.
  • A natural next step is to use EgoIntent as a fine-tuning or instruction-tuning signal for egocentric intent inference and test whether the diagnosed weaknesses (boundary reliance, history degradation) narrow after training.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces EgoIntent, a step-level intent-understanding benchmark built on GoalStep/Ego4D annotations. It contains 3,014 pre-outcome micro-steps from 32 egocentric videos, each manually annotated for Local Intent (What), Global Intent (Why), and Next-Plan (Next). The benchmark clips are truncated before the key outcome of the queried step to avoid future-frame leakage. The authors evaluate 15 multimodal LLMs using a Qwen3-based semantic-consistency evaluator and report that the best model reaches an average score of only 33.31, concluding that step-level intent understanding remains highly challenging. The abstract additionally claims controlled studies on temporal order, boundary-frame input, step-only input, history degradation, and outcome revelation, but the full text (Sections 4–5) reports no such experiments.

Significance. If the annotations and the semantic-consistency evaluator are valid, EgoIntent fills a real gap: it targets fine-grained, step-level intent in egocentric video with ex-ante truncation, open-ended generation, and three complementary dimensions. The manual annotation process, leakage-control checks, and evaluation of 15 diverse MLLMs are sensible and potentially useful for the community. However, the paper's quantitative conclusions rest entirely on an unvalidated LLM judge and the abstract's main diagnostic claim is not present in the body. The benchmark's underlying design is plausible, but the reported numbers and the headline conclusion cannot be accepted without additional validation and either adding or removing the controlled-study claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §4.2/§5] The abstract states that 'Controlled studies on four representative models show that only one model gains significantly from correct temporal order, while a single boundary frame outperforms the full ordered clip for three models. Step-only input performs best for all four models...' and that 'current models can achieve strong intent-prediction scores through static boundary cues.' No such controlled studies, ablations, or diagnostic experiments appear in Sections 4 or 5. The full text reports only the main results in Table 3, scenario-level heatmaps, and qualitative discussion. The paper's most distinctive conclusion is therefore unsupported by the submitted manuscript. Either add the experiments with full methodology and statistical tests, or remove these claims and restrict the conclusions to what Table 3 supports.
  2. [§4.1] All scores in Table 3, including the central 33.31 average, are produced by a Qwen3-based semantic-consistency evaluator. The paper provides no prompt text, no decoding parameters (temperature, max tokens), no evaluator version, no human-agreement calibration, no error bars, and no sensitivity analysis. An unvalidated LLM judge can systematically favor certain output styles or model families, especially since several evaluated models are from the Qwen family. This is load-bearing: if the judge is biased or noisy, the model ranking and the 'highly challenging' claim collapse. The authors should report the evaluator configuration, validate against human judgments on a representative sample (e.g., agreement per dimension), and ideally cross-check with an independent judge.
  3. [§3.3] The paper's core contribution is the pre-outcome truncation, but the validation is only qualitative or sampled. The authors report that 94.3% of final labels remain valid without post-truncation frames on a sampled review of 873 steps, and 957/973 sampled boundaries were judged acceptable. This means roughly 5.7% and 1.6% of samples fail the leakage check; the paper does not report per-dimension error rates, whether these failures concentrate in particular scenarios, or how they affect benchmark scores. The abstract's unconditional claim that truncation 'prevents future-frame leakage' is too strong given the authors' own numbers. Please report the leakage rates separately for local intent, global intent, and next-step plan, and discuss the impact on the reported results.
  4. [§3.3] The quality-control paragraph says the three dimensions 'show overall good annotation consistency' and that disagreements were resolved by discussion, but no inter-annotator agreement statistic (e.g., Cohen's kappa or Krippendorff's alpha) is reported. Since the benchmark's labels are open-ended and the authors identify boundary confusion as the main annotation challenge, quantitative agreement is needed for readers to assess label reliability. Without it, the reference labels themselves are not independently validated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3] The truncation procedure references 'timestamp_sec provided by GoalStep' but does not explain what this timestamp represents or how it relates to step boundaries. Please clarify the original annotation semantics.
  2. [§4.1] The paper states that all models receive 'only a step id as the sample identifier' and that this identifier carries no semantic information. It is unclear whether this ID is consistent across steps in the same video and whether it could enable test-set contamination. Please clarify.
  3. [§4.1] The choice of 6 FPS sampling is a free parameter, but no sensitivity analysis is provided. Given that closed-source models receive multi-image inputs at 6 FPS while open-source models receive video at 6 FPS, the comparison is not fully aligned despite the authors' claim. Please report whether results are stable under different sampling rates.
  4. [Table 3] No confidence intervals or variance estimates are reported for any model score. Given that the evaluator is stochastic, repeated evaluation or bootstrap confidence intervals would strengthen the ranking claims.
  5. [General] The paper does not state whether the benchmark data, annotations, and evaluation code will be released. For a benchmark paper, a release plan or a statement about availability is expected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: EgoIntent is an annotation-and-evaluation benchmark with no derivation chain that reduces outputs to inputs.

full rationale

EgoIntent does not contain a mathematical derivation chain, fitted parameters, or a prediction step defined in terms of its own outputs. The benchmark labels are human annotations (§3.3) produced independently of the evaluated models: local intent, global intent, and next-step plan are manually revised and reviewed, with described quality-control procedures. The central numerical claims (best average 33.31, model rankings in Table 3) come from running MLLMs on those fixed annotations and scoring outputs with a Qwen3-based semantic-consistency evaluator (§4.1). This is an empirical measurement design, not a circular derivation. The choice of Qwen3 as the evaluator while several evaluated models are Qwen-family models is a potential evaluator-bias/validity concern, not circularity: the reference labels are not defined by the evaluator, and model outputs are not fitted to the evaluator's scores. Likewise, the manual pre-outcome truncation is an annotation-time choice; its imperfect supportability (94.3% on a sampled review) affects reliability, not circularity. The abstract's controlled-study findings (temporal-order sensitivity, boundary-frame superiority, history degradation, outcome revelation) are not present in Sections 4–5, and the paper's own text does not report those experiments; this is a missing-support/correctness issue, not an instance of a claim being true by construction or by self-citation. The few self-citations in the reference list are contextual related-work citations and are not load-bearing for the benchmark's conclusions. No equation or construction equates a predicted quantity with its fitted input, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work to force the benchmark design. Thus there is no identifiable circular step, and the appropriate score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters appear in a predictive model; the free parameters listed are evaluation hyperparameters chosen by hand. The central claim relies on four domain assumptions that are acknowledged but only partially verified in the paper.

free parameters (2)
  • Evaluation video sampling rate = 6 FPS
    Chosen by hand in §4.1 to align closed-source and open-source models; affects temporal detail available and thus all scores.
  • Qwen3 semantic judge configuration = not reported
    The scorer's prompt, temperature, and decoding settings are unspecified; the entire benchmark ranking depends on this judge (§4.1).
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption GoalStep's step segmentation and timestamp_sec anchors are accurate enough for step-level intent evaluation.
    EgoIntent inherits boundaries from GoalStep (§3.3); if step boundaries are wrong, labels and truncation are compromised.
  • ad hoc to paper Qwen3 semantic-consistency scores reflect true semantic equivalence for open-ended intent labels.
    The benchmark's entire scoring depends on this LLM judge (§4.1), but no validation against human raters is provided.
  • domain assumption Manual pre-outcome truncation removes all future-frame leakage.
    The paper relies on this to claim anticipatory evaluation (§3.3), while admitting 6.1% of global and 13.7% of next-step labels were rewritten for hindsight dependence and 5.7% of a 873-step supportability sample were judged invalid.
  • domain assumption The three label dimensions are mutually separable and consistently annotated.
    Annotation required explicit calibration of boundaries between local intent and next-step plan (§3.3); disagreements show this is not automatically satisfied.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12615 in / 11594 out tokens · 105944 ms · 2026-08-04T05:47:01.429809+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Egocentric video provides a natural modality for studying human behavior, but conventional visual understanding captures mainly observable scenes, objects, and actions rather than the latent goals that organize them. Existing intent benchmarks typically focus on coarse event-level goals and overlook how intent evolves across procedural steps. We introduce EgoIntent, a step-level intent-understanding benchmark comprising 3,014 pre-outcome micro-steps from 32 egocentric videos across 15 indoor and outdoor daily-life scenarios. Each step is manually annotated along three complementary dimensions: Local Intent (What), the immediate goal; Procedural Intent (Why), the role of the step in the broader procedure; and Next-Plan (Next), the action most likely to follow. Multiple rounds of human review refine temporal boundaries and annotation quality. We evaluate 15 multimodal large language models using reference-based scores and complementary reference-free diagnostics. Controlled studies on four representative models show that only one model gains significantly from correct temporal order, while a single boundary frame outperforms the full ordered clip for three models. Step-only input performs best for all four models, and adding 15 seconds of history significantly degrades three. Revealing the current outcome improves Local Intent by 7.81 points, while revealing the following step improves Next-Plan by 13.17 points. These findings indicate that current models can achieve strong intent-prediction scores through static boundary cues without robustly exploiting temporal order or procedural history.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.12147 by Chenfei Liao, Chi Kit Wong, Hanqian Li, Jiacheng Chen, Jiahao Huo, Lutao Jiang, Xu Zheng, Ye Pan, Yuanhuiyi Lyu, Yuqian Fu, Zixin Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overall performance comparison of 15 MLLMs on the EgoIntent benchmark. 00:00:23.27 00:00:24.73 00:00:00 00:25:53.90 Step Start Time Step End Time Current Step Observation (Input) Next Step (Hidden From Model) Model cannot see future frames Step k Local Intent (GT): prepare the drill for wheel-stud installation Global Intent (GT): aim to repair the wheel 🔵 🟢 Next-Step Plan (GT): replace the socket 🟣 [PITH_… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of the EgoIntent benchmark. Step k is shown as an example extracted from a full egocentric video. Each clip is truncated at the step end time to prevent information leakage from future frames, and annotated with three labels: local intent, global intent, and next-step plan. Egocentric videos provide a natural testbed for this problem [17,34,44]. Their unique first-person perspective unifies human … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Overall environment composition of our proposed EgoIntent benchmark. planning under a given goal, EgoIntent addresses a different question: can a model infer, solely from the currently observable egocentric visual context, what the actor is trying to accomplish at the current moment, what role the current step plays in the overall task, and what is most likely to happen next? EgoIntent is built upon the st… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Step-count distribution across procedural activities procedure, and likely subsequent action directly from the current observation. Given the diversity of valid open-ended expressions, we do not use strict string matching for evaluation. Instead, we adopt an LLM-based semantic consis￾tency evaluation protocol. 3.2 Task Definition Given a temporally truncated egocentric video clip corresponding to a queried… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Examples of pre-outcome truncation in EgoIntent simply rely on coarse timestamps, but instead determines the final observation boundary through manual verification under a unified rule. Annotation Quality Control. To ensure annotation quality, we introduce a multi-stage quality control procedure. The full annotation process is carried out by five annotators with experience in video understanding. After the… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of step durations in EgoIntent From the review results, the three dimensions show overall good annotation consistency, although their difficulty levels are not identical. The most common source of confusion is the boundary between local intent and next-step plan, whereas disagreements on global intent mainly arise from whether the level of abstraction is appropriate. Most labels revised after … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Scenario-level performance heatmap of 15 MLLMs across 15 environment cat￾egories on EgoIntent. Each cell reports the overall score of a given model in a specific scenario. Darker colors indicate higher scores. Models are sorted by overall performance from top to bottom, and scenarios are ordered from lowest (Yard) to highest (Bedroom) average score across all models. information and cannot support reasonin… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. EgoIntrospect: An Egocentric Dataset and Benchmark for User-Centric Internal State Reasoning

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    EgoIntrospect provides the first egocentric dataset with self-annotations for internal state tasks and shows multimodal LLMs struggle to infer subjective states from combined signals.

  2. EgoGapBench: Benchmarking Egocentric Action Selection in Multi-Agent Scenes

    cs.CV 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    EgoGapBench shows humans reliably select egocentric actions in multi-agent scenes while MLLMs systematically choose other agents' actions, and standard egocentric training data fails to close the gap.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 20 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631 (2025)

    Bai, S., Cai, Y., Chen, R., Chen, K., Chen, X., Cheng, Z., Deng, L., Ding, W., Gao, C., Ge, C., et al.: Qwen3-vl technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13923 (2025)

    Bai, S., et al.: Qwen2.5-vl technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13923 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    International Journal of Computer Vision134(3), 118 (2026)

    Chen, Y., Ge, Y., Ge, Y., Ding, M., Li, B., Wang, R., Xu, R., Shan, Y., Liu, X.: Egoplan-bench: Benchmarking multimodal large language models for human-level planning. International Journal of Computer Vision134(3), 118 (2026)

    2026

  4. [4]

    Science China Information Sciences67(12), 220101 (2024)

    Chen, Z., Wang, W., Tian, H., Ye, S., Gao, Z., Cui, E., Tong, W., Hu, K., Luo, J., Ma, Z., et al.: How far are we to gpt-4v? closing the gap to commercial multimodal models with open-source suites. Science China Information Sciences67(12), 220101 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.11623 (2024)

    Cheng, S., Fang, K., Yu, Y., Zhou, S., Li, B., Tian, Y., Li, T., Han, L., Liu, Y.: Videgothink: Assessing egocentric video understanding capabilities for embodied ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.11623 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    In: Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Cheng, S., Guo, Z., Wu, J., Fang, K., Li, P., Liu, H., Liu, Y.: Egothink: Evaluating first-person perspective thinking capability of vision-language models. In: Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 14291–14302 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.01742 (2025)

    Chu, Q., Zhang, H., Liu, M., Feng, Y., Shi, H., Nie, L.: Intention-guided cog- nitive reasoning for egocentric long-term action anticipation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.01742 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.10611 (2026)

    Clark, C., Zhang, J., Ma, Z., Park, J.S., Salehi, M., Tripathi, R., Lee, S., Ren, Z., Kim, C.D., Yang, Y., et al.: Molmo2: Open weights and data for vision-language models with video understanding and grounding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.10611 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06261 (2025)

    Comanici, G., Bieber, E., Schaekermann, M., Pasupat, I., Sachdeva, N., Dhillon, I., Blistein, M., Ram, O., Zhang, D., Rosen, E., et al.: Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced reasoning, multimodality, long context, and next generation agentic capabilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06261 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    In: Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV)

    Damen, D., Doughty, H., Farinella, G.M., Fidler, S., Furnari, A., Kazakos, E., Moltisanti, D., Munro, J., Perrett, T., Price, W., et al.: Scaling egocentric vision: The epic-kitchens dataset. In: Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV). pp. 720–736 (2018)

    2018

  11. [11]

    Google DeepMind: Gemini 3.https://deepmind.google/models/gemini/(2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on com- puter vision and pattern recognition

    Grauman, K., Westbury, A., Byrne, E., Chavis, Z., Furnari, A., Girdhar, R., Ham- burger, J., Jiang, H., Liu, M., Liu, X., et al.: Ego4d: Around the world in 3,000 hours of egocentric video. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on com- puter vision and pattern recognition. pp. 18995–19012 (2022)

    2022

  13. [13]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Grauman, K., Westbury, A., Torresani, L., Kitani, K., Malik, J., Afouras, T., Ashutosh, K., Baiyya, V., Bansal, S., Boote, B., et al.: Ego-exo4d: Understanding skilled human activity from first-and third-person perspectives. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 19383–19400 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16500 (2024)

    Hong, W., Wang, W., Ding, M., Yu, W., Lv, Q., Wang, Y., Cheng, Y., Huang, S., Ji, J., Xue, Z., et al.: Cogvlm2: Visual language models for image and video understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16500 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    In: Proceedings of the 48th International ACM 16 Y

    Huang, S., Li, H., Gu, Y., Hu, X., Li, Q., Xu, G.: Hyperg: Hypergraph-enhanced llms for structured knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 48th International ACM 16 Y. Pan et al. SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. pp. 1218–1228 (2025)

    2025

  16. [16]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276 (2024)

    Hurst, A., Lerer, A., Goucher, A.P., Perelman, A., Ramesh, A., Clark, A., Os- trow, A., Welihinda, A., Hayes, A., Radford, A., et al.: Gpt-4o system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.18242 (2025)

    Kulkarni, Y., Fazli, P.: Egovita: Learning to plan and verify for egocentric video reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.18242 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    In: Proceedings of the 38th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology

    Lee, G., Xia, M., Numan, N., Qian, X., Li, D., Chen, Y., Kulshrestha, A., Chat- terjee, I., Zhang, Y., Manocha, D., et al.: Sensible agent: A framework for unob- trusive interaction with proactive ar agents. In: Proceedings of the 38th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. pp. 1–22 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    Li, J., Wei, P., Han, W., Fan, L.: Intentqa: Context-aware video intent reasoning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 11963–11974 (2023)

    2023

  20. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05525 (2024)

    Lu, H., Liu, W., Zhang, B., Wang, B., Dong, K., Liu, B., Sun, J., Ren, T., Li, Z., Yang, H., et al.: Deepseek-vl: towards real-world vision-language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05525 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12361 (2024)

    Lu, Y., Yang, S., Qian, C., Chen, G., Luo, Q., Wu, Y., Wang, H., Cong, X., Zhang, Z., Lin, Y., et al.: Proactive agent: Shifting llm agents from reactive responses to active assistance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12361 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Lyu, Y., Zheng, X., Zhou, J., Wang, L.: Unibind: Llm-augmented unified and balanced representation space to bind them all. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 26752–26762 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36, 46212–46244 (2023)

    Mangalam, K., Akshulakov, R., Malik, J.: Egoschema: A diagnostic benchmark for very long-form video language understanding. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36, 46212–46244 (2023)

    2023

  24. [24]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Peirone, S.A., Pistilli, F., Averta, G.: Hiero: understanding the hierarchy of hu- man behavior enhances reasoning on egocentric videos. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 19862–19871 (2025)

    2025

  25. [25]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.07447 (2025)

    Peng, T., Hua, J., Liu, M., Lu, F.: In the eye of mllm: Benchmarking ego- centric video intent understanding with gaze-guided prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.07447 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

    Perrett, T., Darkhalil, A., Sinha, S., Emara, O., Pollard, S., Parida, K.K., Liu, K., Gatti, P., Bansal, S., Flanagan, K., et al.: Hd-epic: A highly-detailed egocentric video dataset. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 23901–23913 (2025)

    2025

  27. [27]

    Qwen Team: Qwen3.5: Towards native multimodal agents (February 2026),https: //qwen.ai/blog?id=qwen3.5

    2026

  28. [28]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01486 (2024)

    Seminara, L., Farinella, G.M., Furnari, A.: Differentiable task graph learning: Pro- ceduralactivityrepresentationandonlinemistakedetectionfromegocentricvideos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01486 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Sener, F., Chatterjee, D., Shelepov, D., He, K., Singhania, D., Wang, R., Yao, A.: Assembly101: A large-scale multi-view video dataset for understanding procedural activities. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 21096–21106 (2022)

    2022

  30. [30]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.09626 (2018)

    Sigurdsson, G.A., Gupta, A., Schmid, C., Farhadi, A., Alahari, K.: Charades- ego: A large-scale dataset of paired third and first person videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.09626 (2018)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    Advances in neural information processing systems36, 38863–38886 (2023) EgoIntent 17

    Song, Y., Byrne, E., Nagarajan, T., Wang, H., Martin, M., Torresani, L.: Ego4d goal-step: Toward hierarchical understanding of procedural activities. Advances in neural information processing systems36, 38863–38886 (2023) EgoIntent 17

    2023

  32. [32]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07491 (2025)

    Team, K., Du, A., Yin, B., Xing, B., Qu, B., Wang, B., Chen, C., Zhang, C., Du, C., Wei, C., et al.: Kimi-vl technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07491 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.22443 (2025)

    Veerabadran,V.,Xiao,F.,Kamra,N.,Matias,P.,Chen,J.,Drooff,C.,Roads,B.D., Williams, R., Henderson, E., Zhao, X., et al.: Benchmarking egocentric multimodal goal inference for assistive wearable agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.22443 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03097 (2025)

    Vinod,A.,Pandit,S.,Vavre,A.,Liu,L.:Egovlm:Policyoptimizationforegocentric video understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03097 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12191 (2024)

    Wang, P., Bai, S., Tan, S., Wang, S., Fan, Z., Bai, J., Chen, K., Liu, X., Wang, J., Ge, W., et al.: Qwen2-vl: Enhancing vision-language model’s perception of the world at any resolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12191 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.14359 (2025)

    Wen, Z., Wang, Y., Liao, C., Yang, B., Li, J., Liu, W., He, H., Feng, B., Liu, X., Lyu, Y., et al.: Ai for service: Proactive assistance with ai glasses. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.14359 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.10302 (2024)

    Wu,Z.,Chen,X.,Pan,Z.,Liu,X.,Liu,W.,Dai,D.,Gao,H.,Ma,Y.,Wu,C.,Wang, B., et al.: Deepseek-vl2: Mixture-of-experts vision-language models for advanced multimodal understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.10302 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Xiao,J.,Shang,X.,Yao,A.,Chua,T.S.:Next-qa:Nextphaseofquestion-answering to explaining temporal actions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 9777–9786 (2021)

    2021

  39. [39]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.02064 (2025)

    Xun, S., Tao, S., Li, J., Shi, Y., Lin, Z., Zhu, Z., Yan, Y., Li, H., Zhang, L., Wang, S., et al.: Rtv-bench: Benchmarking mllm continuous perception, understanding and reasoning through real-time video. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.02064 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388 (2025)

    Yang, A., Li, A., Yang, B., Zhang, B., Hui, B., Zheng, B., Yu, B., Gao, C., Huang, C., Lv, C., et al.: Qwen3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07177 (2024)

    Ye, H., Zhang, H., Daxberger, E., Chen, L., Lin, Z., Li, Y., Zhang, B., You, H., Xu, D., Gan, Z., et al.: Mm-ego: Towards building egocentric multimodal llms for video qa. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07177 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Zhang, Y., Li, B., Liu, h., Lee, Y.j., Gui, L., Fu, D., Feng, J., Liu, Z., Li, C.: Llava- next: A strong zero-shot video understanding model (April 2024),https://llava- vl.github.io/blog/2024-04-30-llava-next-video/

    2024

  43. [43]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02713 (2024)

    Zhang, Y., Wu, J., Li, W., Li, B., Ma, Z., Liu, Z., Li, C.: Llava-video: Video instruction tuning with synthetic data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02713 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision

    Zhou, J., Zheng, X., Lyu, Y., Wang, L.: Eventbind: Learning a unified represen- tation to bind them all for event-based open-world understanding. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 477–494. Springer (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.06835 (2025)

    Zhou, W., Cao, K., Zheng, H., Liu, Y., Zheng, X., Liu, M., Kristensson, P.O., Mayol-Cuevas, W., Zhang, F., Lin, W., et al.: X-lebench: A benchmark for ex- tremely long egocentric video understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.06835 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10479 (2025)

    Zhu, J., Wang, W., Chen, Z., Liu, Z., Ye, S., Gu, L., Tian, H., Duan, Y., Su, W., Shao, J., et al.: Internvl3: Exploring advanced training and test-time recipes for open-source multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10479 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025