arxiv: 2605.08175 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 💻 cs.CV · cs.AI

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

KARMA-MV: A Benchmark for Causal Question Answering on Music Videos

Archishman Ghosh , Abhinaba Roy , Dorien Herremans

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 01:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV cs.AI

keywords causal reasoningmusic videosvideo question answeringvision-language modelsknowledge graphsmultimodal benchmarksaudio-visual understanding

0 comments

The pith

Grounding vision-language models with a causal knowledge graph improves their reasoning about how visuals shape music in videos.

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

The paper creates KARMA-MV, a benchmark of over 37,000 multiple-choice questions drawn from thousands of music videos, to test whether models can reason causally about visual dynamics driving musical structure rather than just spotting correlations. It generates the questions at scale using large language models instead of hand annotation and then augments vision-language models with a causal knowledge graph that retrieves structured cross-modal dependencies. Experiments show that this grounding produces consistent accuracy gains, with the largest lifts appearing in smaller models. The work therefore supplies both a testbed and a concrete method for moving audio-visual understanding beyond pattern matching toward explicit causal accounts.

Core claim

KARMA-MV supplies 37,737 multiple-choice questions spanning reasoning, prediction, and counterfactuals on 2,682 music videos. When vision-language models are augmented with a causal knowledge graph that encodes cross-modal dependencies between visual events and musical outcomes, they achieve higher accuracy on these questions than unaugmented baselines, and the improvement is most pronounced for smaller models.

What carries the argument

The causal knowledge graph (CKG) that stores and retrieves explicit dependencies between visual dynamics and musical structure for structured retrieval during model inference.

If this is right

Smaller vision-language models receive larger performance boosts from the causal graph than larger ones.
Models become better at answering prediction and counterfactual questions that require understanding influence across time.
The benchmark allows direct comparison of causal versus correlational approaches on the same audio-visual material.
Explicit causal structure can be added to existing vision-language pipelines without retraining the underlying model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same CKG construction method could be tested on other paired audio-visual domains such as dance videos or film scoring.
If the gains hold, future work might explore whether the graph can be learned directly from data instead of built via LLM prompting.
The dataset could serve as a probe for whether current multimodal models already possess implicit causal knowledge that only needs better prompting.

Load-bearing premise

The LLM-generated questions and answers correctly identify genuine causal relationships in the videos without systematic bias or fabrication.

What would settle it

A human review of several hundred randomly sampled question-answer pairs that finds frequent mismatches between the claimed causal link and what actually occurs in the corresponding video clip.

read the original abstract

While significant progress has been made in Video Question Answering and cross-modal understanding, causal reasoning about how visual dynamics drive musical structure in music videos remains under-explored. We introduce KARMA-MV, a large-scale multiple-choice QA dataset derived from 2,682 YouTube music videos, designed to test models' ability to integrate temporal audio-visual cues and reason about visual-to-musical influence across reasoning, prediction, and counterfactual questions. Unlike traditional datasets requiring manual annotation, KARMA-MV leverages LLM reasoning for scalable generation and validation, yielding 37,737 MCQs. We propose a causal knowledge graph (CKG) approach that augments vision-language models (VLMs) with structured retrieval of cross-modal dependencies. Experiments on state-of-the-art VLMs and LLMs show consistent gains from CKG grounding -- especially for smaller models -- establishing the value of explicit causal structure for music-video reasoning. KARMA-MV provides a new benchmark for advancing causal audio-visual understanding beyond correlation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

KARMA-MV brings a new music-video causal QA benchmark and CKG augmentation, but the all-LLM label generation is the part that needs checking before the gains can be taken at face value.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that this paper gives us KARMA-MV, a dataset of 37,737 multiple-choice questions drawn from 2,682 YouTube music videos, aimed at testing causal reasoning about how visuals shape musical structure. They also add a causal knowledge graph (CKG) retrieval step to ground VLMs and LLMs, and report that it produces consistent gains, especially on smaller models. That is genuinely new for this narrow domain; most prior causal or multimodal work has stayed away from music videos specifically, and the scale plus the three question types (reasoning, prediction, counterfactual) is a step beyond existing VQA sets. The focus on visual-to-musical influence is a reasonable choice of testbed where correlation and causation are easy to mix up. The experiments at least show the CKG idea can be implemented and measured on current models. The soft spot is the dataset construction. Everything is produced by LLM reasoning for both question generation and validation, with no human annotation or external causal check described in the abstract. If the LLM is systematically labeling correlational patterns as causal or filling in plausible but invented dependencies, then the reported improvements from CKG grounding could simply reflect better alignment with the same model's priors rather than actual causal understanding. Without reported error rates, agreement metrics, or a sample of human-reviewed items, it is difficult to know how much noise is in the benchmark. The paper is aimed at researchers building causal multimodal systems or domain-specific benchmarks. A reader working on video reasoning or knowledge-augmented VLMs could extract useful ideas from the CKG approach and the question typology, provided the data quality holds up under closer inspection. I would send it to peer review so referees can examine the full generation pipeline, any controls, and statistical details. The core idea is worth testing, but the current evidence for the benchmark's reliability is thin.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces KARMA-MV, a large-scale multiple-choice question answering dataset comprising 37,737 questions from 2,682 YouTube music videos, generated and validated using LLM reasoning to evaluate causal reasoning about how visual dynamics influence musical structure. The authors propose augmenting vision-language models with a causal knowledge graph (CKG) for structured retrieval of cross-modal dependencies and report consistent performance gains in experiments on state-of-the-art VLMs and LLMs, particularly for smaller models.

Significance. Should the benchmark's causal annotations prove reliable, KARMA-MV would represent a significant contribution as a scalable benchmark for causal audio-visual understanding in music videos, moving beyond correlational approaches. The CKG method would further demonstrate the utility of explicit causal structures in improving multimodal reasoning, with potential applications in other video domains.

major comments (3)

[Section 3 (Dataset Construction)] Section 3 (Dataset Construction): The paper relies exclusively on LLM-based generation and validation for the causal questions and answers without any human annotation, inter-annotator agreement, or reported error rates. This is load-bearing for the central claim because the headline result—that CKG grounding yields gains in causal music-video reasoning—requires KARMA-MV to reflect genuine visual-to-musical causality rather than LLM priors or hallucinations.
[Section 5 (Experiments and Results)] Section 5 (Experiments and Results): The reported consistent gains from CKG grounding (especially for smaller models) lack statistical significance tests, ablation controls for LLM bias, or comparison against a human-validated subset. Without these, it remains possible that improvements measure alignment with the same LLM used for dataset creation rather than improved causal understanding.
[Section 4 (CKG Approach)] Section 4 (CKG Approach): The construction of the causal knowledge graph is described at a high level but does not specify its independence from the LLM pipeline used to create KARMA-MV or whether external causal oracles are incorporated; this leaves open the possibility that CKG retrieval simply reinforces the benchmark's own generative biases.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The breakdown of question types (reasoning, prediction, counterfactual) and their respective counts or difficulty distributions is mentioned but not quantified, which would help readers assess coverage.
[Throughout] Throughout: The notation and retrieval mechanism for CKG components would benefit from a formal definition or pseudocode to support reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. We address each major comment point by point below, acknowledging limitations where they exist and outlining specific revisions to strengthen the manuscript. Our responses focus on clarifying the methodology and proposing concrete improvements without overstating the current validation.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Section 3 (Dataset Construction)] Section 3 (Dataset Construction): The paper relies exclusively on LLM-based generation and validation for the causal questions and answers without any human annotation, inter-annotator agreement, or reported error rates. This is load-bearing for the central claim because the headline result—that CKG grounding yields gains in causal music-video reasoning—requires KARMA-MV to reflect genuine visual-to-musical causality rather than LLM priors or hallucinations.

Authors: We agree that reliance on LLM-based generation and validation without human annotation represents a limitation for establishing the benchmark's causal fidelity. Section 3 describes our scalable LLM-driven pipeline for question generation and validation, chosen to enable the large scale of 37,737 questions. In revision, we will expand this section with additional details on the prompting strategies, multi-step consistency checks, and any automated error detection used. We will also add an explicit limitations discussion on potential LLM priors and outline a plan for future human validation on a sampled subset. However, we cannot retroactively provide inter-annotator agreement or human error rates without conducting new annotation. revision: partial
Referee: [Section 5 (Experiments and Results)] Section 5 (Experiments and Results): The reported consistent gains from CKG grounding (especially for smaller models) lack statistical significance tests, ablation controls for LLM bias, or comparison against a human-validated subset. Without these, it remains possible that improvements measure alignment with the same LLM used for dataset creation rather than improved causal understanding.

Authors: We concur that additional statistical controls and bias ablations would strengthen the experimental claims. In the revised manuscript, we will incorporate statistical significance testing (such as paired t-tests or bootstrap methods) for all reported performance deltas. We will further add ablation experiments that vary the LLM used for evaluation and, where feasible, evaluate on a small human-validated subset of questions to isolate whether gains stem from causal structure rather than model alignment. These additions will be presented in an updated Section 5. revision: yes
Referee: [Section 4 (CKG Approach)] Section 4 (CKG Approach): The construction of the causal knowledge graph is described at a high level but does not specify its independence from the LLM pipeline used to create KARMA-MV or whether external causal oracles are incorporated; this leaves open the possibility that CKG retrieval simply reinforces the benchmark's own generative biases.

Authors: The CKG construction draws on general causal principles from music theory and audio-visual analysis, with LLM assistance limited to structured extraction rather than direct reuse of the KARMA-MV generation pipeline. We will revise Section 4 to include a more granular description of the graph construction steps, explicit separation from the question-generation process, and the specific causal relation templates employed. This will demonstrate that the CKG functions as an independent retrieval structure and does not simply echo the benchmark's generative process. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved

Provision of human annotation, inter-annotator agreement, or human error rates for the full dataset, as the construction was intentionally designed as a fully automated LLM pipeline for scalability and no human annotators were employed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; empirical benchmark with disclosed LLM-assisted construction

full rationale

The paper constructs KARMA-MV via LLM-based question generation and validation on YouTube music videos, then reports experimental gains from CKG augmentation on VLMs/LLMs. No derivation reduces to self-definition, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations; the central claims rest on comparative performance numbers rather than tautological equivalence to the generation process. The methodology is presented as an empirical contribution with transparent use of LLMs for scale, independent of any closed loop in the reported results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only abstract available; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are described.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5475 in / 908 out tokens · 41587 ms · 2026-05-12T01:00:33.636845+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

leverages LLM reasoning for scalable generation and validation, yielding 37,737 MCQs

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

[1]

INTRODUCTION Audio and video are two dominant perceptual channels through which human experience the world, and under- standing how these modalities co-evolve is fundamental to a broad class of multimedia reasoning problems. When watching a music video by famous rock bands or a chore- ographed dance sequence from a film, it is natural to ob- serve tight c...

work page
[2]

We introduce a large-scale, automatically generated MCQ dataset for causal reasoning in music videos, cov- ering description, explanation, prediction, and coun- terfactual question types across diverse audio-visual scenes

work page
[3]

We propose an LLM-driven pipeline for dataset con- struction that eliminates the need for manual annota- tion while preserving semantic complexity, enabling straightforward extension to new video sources

work page
[4]

We design an architecture that integrates a Causal Knowledge Graph with a Vision Language Model, en- abling structured cross-modal reasoning over audio- visual dependencies

work page
[5]

KARMA-MV: A Benchmark for Causal Question Answering on Music Videos

We provide a comprehensive evaluation of state-of-the- art VLM baselines on KARMA-MV and demonstrate that explicit causal modeling via knowledge graphs yields consistent improvements, establishing a strong baseline for future work on causal music-video under- standing. In the remainder of this paper, we describe how a Causal 1 arXiv:2605.08175v1 [cs.CV] 5...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[6]

Sun et al

RELA TED WORK 2.1 Multimodal and Audio-Visual Understanding KARMA-MV operates across three modalities, hence is at the intersection of multimodal representation learning and audio-visual understanding. Sun et al. in [4] pro- posed Interaction Canonical Correlation Network (ICCN), for multimodal sentiment analysis and emotion recognition by jointly modelli...

work page
[7]

Dataset Creation and testing on baseline VLMs

METHODOLOGY The work is broadly divided into two parts:I. Dataset Creation and testing on baseline VLMs. II. Building Knowledge Graph VLM architecture.The dataset cre- ation pipeline comprises four steps: 1) Feature extraction,

work page
[8]

Our approach is very simple

Generation of causal reasoning dataset 3) Generation of MCQ dataset 4) Validating the dataset. Our approach is very simple. Unlike many other datasets, KARMA- MV does not rely on human annotators for either creation or validation. Instead, we have leverage an LLM for au- tomated dataset creation and VLMs for baseline evalua- tion, which ensures scalabilit...

work page 2026
[9]

Genre: Pop

CAUSAL MODEL 4.1 Causal Knowledge Graph Construction To model causality explicitly and improve downstream model performance, we augment our VLM baselines with Causal Knowledge information encoded as structured graph representations. A Causal Knowledge Graph (CKG) is a natural representation for this purpose, as it enables efficient search, retrieval, and ...

work page 2026
[10]

We include two state-of-the-art VLM models in our experiment: Qwen-2.5-Omni-7B [20] and MiniCPM-o 4.5 [21]

EXPERIMENTAL SETUP We evaluate the baseline performance of current open VLMs and thinking LLM’s on KARMA-MV MCQs, and subsequently ground them with the developed Causal Knowledge Graph. We include two state-of-the-art VLM models in our experiment: Qwen-2.5-Omni-7B [20] and MiniCPM-o 4.5 [21]. During evaluation, the raw music- video transition scene pairs ...

work page
[11]

As shown in Table 1, Qwen 2.5 Omni achieves an overall accuracy of 66.37%, the lowest among the three baselines

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 6.1 Improving MCQ answering with CKG 6.1.1 Baseline results Examining the baseline models provides a picture of how the VLMs behave on our dataset without any external causal grounding. As shown in Table 1, Qwen 2.5 Omni achieves an overall accuracy of 66.37%, the lowest among the three baselines. Counterfactual questions prove to b...

work page 2026
[12]

The dataset is constructed entirely through auto- mated, feature-grounded generation, reflecting the genuine difficulty of the task for human annotators

CONCLUSION We introduced KARMA-MV 1 , a large-scale benchmark for causal question answering in music videos, targeting how changes in visual content drive changes in music and audio. The dataset is constructed entirely through auto- mated, feature-grounded generation, reflecting the genuine difficulty of the task for human annotators. Experiments across t...

work page 2026
[13]

SUTD SKI 2021_04_06 and from MOE grant no

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work has received funding from grant no. SUTD SKI 2021_04_06 and from MOE grant no. MOE-T2EP20124- 0014

work page
[14]

AI USAGE STA TEMENT We acknowledge the use of Gemini and Claude for gram- mar improvements

work page
[15]

Qwen2.5: A party of foundation models,

Qwen Team, “Qwen2.5: A party of foundation models,” Qwen Blog, September 2024. [Online]. Available: https://qwenlm.github.io/blog/qwen2.5/

work page 2024
[16]

Qwen2 Technical Report

A. Yang, B. Yang, B. Hui, B. Zheng, B. Yuet al., “Qwen2 technical report,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.10671

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[17]

From representation to reasoning: Towards both evidence and commonsense reasoning for video question-answering,

J. Li, L. Niu, and L. Zhang, “From representation to reasoning: Towards both evidence and commonsense reasoning for video question-answering,” inProc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition (CVPR), New Orleans, USA, 18–24 Jun. 2022, pp. 21 273–21 282

work page 2022
[18]

Learning relationships between text, audio, and video via deep canonical correlation for multimodal language analysis,

Z. Sun, P. Sarma, W. Sethares, and Y . Liang, “Learning relationships between text, audio, and video via deep canonical correlation for multimodal language analysis,”Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 34, no. 05, pp. 8992–8999, Apr. 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/6431

work page 2020
[19]

Video question- answering techniques, benchmark datasets and eval- uation metrics leveraging video captioning: A com- prehensive survey,

K. Khurana and U. Deshpande, “Video question- answering techniques, benchmark datasets and eval- uation metrics leveraging video captioning: A com- prehensive survey,”IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 43 799– 43 823, 2021

work page 2021
[20]

MovieQA: Understand- ing stories in movies through question-answering,

M. Tapaswi, Y . Zhu, R. Stiefelhagen, A. Torralba, R. Urtasun, and S. Fidler, “MovieQA: Understand- ing stories in movies through question-answering,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Las Vegas, USA, 27–30 Jun. 2016, pp. 4631–4640

work page 2016
[21]

TVQA: Local- ized, compositional video question answering,

J. Lei, L. Yu, M. Bansal, and T. Berg, “TVQA: Local- ized, compositional video question answering,” inPro- ceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Meth- ods in Natural Language Processing, Oct–Nov 2018, pp. 1369–1379

work page 2018
[22]

ActivityNet-QA: a dataset for understanding complex web videos via ques- tion answering,

Z. Yu, D. Xu, J. Yu, T. Yu, Z. Zhao, Y . Zhuang, and D. Tao, “ActivityNet-QA: a dataset for understanding complex web videos via ques- tion answering,” ser. AAAI’19/IAAI’19/EAAI’19. AAAI Press, 2019. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33019127

work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33019127 2019
[23]

2021 , url =

J. Xiao, X. Shang, A. Yao, and T.-S. Chua, “ NExT-QA: Next phase of question-answering to explaining temporal actions,” inIEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Com- puter Society, June 2021, pp. 9772–9781. [On- line]. Available: https://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/ 10.1109/CVPR46437.2021.00965

work page doi:10.1109/cvpr46437.2021.00965 2021
[24]

Learning to answer questions in dynamic audio-visual scenarios,

G. Li, Y . Wei, Y . Tian, C. Xu, J.-R. Wen, and D. Hu, “Learning to answer questions in dynamic audio-visual scenarios,” inProc. of the IEEE/CVF Conf. on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2022, pp. 19 108–19 118

work page 2022
[25]

PySceneDetect

B. Castellano, “PySceneDetect.” [Online]. Available: https://github.com/Breakthrough/PySceneDetect

work page
[26]

librosa: Audio and mu- sic signal analysis in python,

B. McFee, C. Raffel, D. Liang, D. P. Ellis, M. McVicar, E. Battenberg, and O. Nieto, “librosa: Audio and mu- sic signal analysis in python,” inProc. 14th Python in Science Conf. (SCIPY 2015), Austin, USA, 06–12 Jul. 2015, pp. 18–25

work page 2015
[27]

Towards unified music emotion recognition across dimensional and categori- cal models,

J. Kang and D. Herremans, “Towards unified music emotion recognition across dimensional and categori- cal models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.03979, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[28]

MIRFLEX: Music information retrieval feature library for extrac- tion,

A. Chopra, A. Roy, and D. Herremans, “MIRFLEX: Music information retrieval feature library for extrac- tion,” inProc. of the Late-Breaking Demo Session of the 25th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conf. (ISMIR), San Francisco, United States, 2024

work page 2024
[29]

Tensorflow audio models in essentia,

P. Alonso-Jiménez, D. Bogdanov, J. Pons, and X. Serra, “Tensorflow audio models in essentia,” in Proc. of the IEEE Int. Conf. on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), Barcelona, Spain, 2020, pp. 266–270

work page 2020
[30]

Ultralytics yolov8,

G. Jocher, A. Chaurasia, and J. Qiu, “Ultralytics yolov8,” 2023, version 8.0.0. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics

work page 2023
[31]

Data-driven causal knowledge graph construction for root cause analysis in quality problem solving,

Z. Xu and Y . Dang, “Data-driven causal knowledge graph construction for root cause analysis in quality problem solving,”International Journal of Production Research, vol. 61, no. 10

work page
[32]

Exploring net- work structure, dynamics, and function using net- workx,

A. Hagberg, P. Swart, and D. Chult, “Exploring net- work structure, dynamics, and function using net- workx,” 06 2008

work page 2008
[33]

Causal inference,

J. Pearl, “Causal inference,”Causality: objectives and assessment, pp. 39–58, 2010

work page 2010
[34]

Qwen2.5-Omni Technical Report

J. Xu, Z. Guo, J. He, H. Hu, T. He, S. Bai, K. Chen, J. Wang, Y . Fan, K. Dang, B. Zhang, X. Wang, Y . Chu, and J. Lin, “Qwen2.5-omni technical report,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.20215 A. Ghosh, A. Roy, D. Herremans, 2026

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[35]

MiniCPM-V: A GPT-4V Level MLLM on Your Phone

Y . Yao, T. Yu, A. Zhang, C. Wang, J. Cui, H. Zhu, T. Cai, H. Li, W. Zhao, Z. Heet al., “Minicpm-v: A gpt-4v level mllm on your phone,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.01800, 2024

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[36]

Gemma 4 31b it,

Google, “Gemma 4 31b it,” 2026. [Online]. Available: https://huggingface.co/google/gemma-4-31B-it

work page 2026