LSMDC
Models fill in a missing word in movie audio descriptions using the matching video clip. Scoring is accuracy.
This is the fill-in-the-blank task of the Large Scale Movie Description Challenge, also called MovieFIB.
In the authors’ words
While deep convolutional neural networks frequently approach or exceed human-level performance at benchmark tasks involving static images, extending this success to moving images is not straightforward. Having models which can learn to understand video is of interest for many applications, including content recommendation, prediction, summarization, event/object detection and understanding human visual perception, but many domains lack sufficient data to explore and perfect video models. In order to address the need for a simple, quantitative benchmark for developing and understanding video, we present MovieFIB, a fill-in-the-blank question-answering dataset with over 300,000 examples, based on descriptive video annotations for the visually impaired. In addition to presenting statistics and a description of the dataset, we perform a detailed analysis of 5 different models' predictions, and compare these with human performance. We investigate the relative importance of language, static (2D) visual features, and moving (3D) visual features; the effects of increasing dataset size, the number of frames sampled; and of vocabulary size. We illustrate that: this task is not solvable by a language model alone; our model combining 2D and 3D visual information indeed provides the best result; all models perform significantly worse than human-level. We provide human evaluations for responses given by different models and find that accuracy on the MovieFIB evaluation corresponds well with human judgement. We suggest avenues for improving video models, and hope that the proposed dataset can be useful for measuring and encouraging progress in this very interesting field.
- Level
- Everyday Most adults, without training
- Scored
- Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
- Answers
- Short answer A number, word or short string matched to a key.
GPT-4 leads with 45.7%
Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.
- 1 GPT-4 Mar 2023 45.7%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GPT-4 Mar 2023 | 45.7% | Mar 2023 | Model card |
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
No launch post has listed it since Mar 2023
Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 14 Mar 2023 | GPT-4 | 45.7 | LSMDC Fill-in-the-blank accuracy (test) 0-shot |
More in Audio and video
- Video-MMMU In use 300 expert-level lecture videos with questions testing perception, comprehension and adaptation of knowledge. Accuracy.
Qwen 3.8 Max 88.7%
- LVBench In use Hours-long video understanding with multiple-choice questions on reasoning, grounding and summarization.
Gemini 4 Argon 91.7%
- MMVU In use 3,000 expert-annotated questions on videos across 27 disciplines. Multiple-choice and open-ended accuracy.
Qwen 3.8 Max 82.4%
- MLVU In use Multi-task long video understanding (minutes to hours) with multiple-choice and generation tasks. Accuracy.
Qwen 3.8 Max 90.8%
- VoiceBench In use Spoken instructions with speaker, environment and content variation. Voice assistant responses scored by GPT judge or rules.
Qwen3.5-Omni-Plus 93.1%
- TVBench In use Models answer multiple-choice questions on 10 temporal video tasks, such as action counting and ordering, that static frames cannot solve. Scored by accuracy.
Qwen 3.8 Max 81.9%