Benchmark Almanac

Omni-InteractScope Explicit Request

Gemini 3.5 Flash 20.2% leads since October 2026
Not in model cards

Models answer explicit requests during audio and video streams. The score is the published average across tasks T1 through T7.

One track of Omni-InteractScope. The Omni-InteractScope record keeps lab scores that combine tracks.

Released
October 2026
Kind
Video understanding
Level
Everyday
Scored
Graded by a model
Answers
Open-ended
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
Gemini 3.1 Pro #39 on the capability index
Last model added
May 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Omnimodal large language models (Omni-LLMs) are increasingly expected to assist users while observing continuous audiovisual streams. However, existing evaluations provide limited insight into how reliably these models connect stream evidence and user needs to timely, sustained interventions. We introduce Omni-InteractScope, a benchmark of 1,479 human-annotated, cross-reviewed interactions with 1,790 temporal targets across eight task groups. It links input modalities, event triggers, intervention types, and user needs, covering event-timed tool invocation and query-free assistance alongside notifications, warnings, state tracking, and continuous responses. Our experimental results on the proposed benchmark reveal three critical limitations of current Omni-LLMs: (1) Timely tool invocation remains unreliable: all 12 evaluated models produce an on-time first response for at most 40% of tool-invocation targets, and joint timing-and-tool accuracy reaches at most 32.0%. (2) Query-free reminders remain poorly covered: all evaluated models achieve lower timely reference-target recall on query-free reminders than on explicit questions, measured on their respective target sets. Reminder recall never exceeds 23.0%. (3) End-to-end guidance coverage remains limited: nine models cover none of the 26 guidance sequences in full, and the remaining three cover only one to three sequences each. Targeted controls further show that tool-invocation scores alone do not establish event grounding and that reminder coverage depends on response history and frequency. These findings motivate developing and evaluating streaming assistants for timely action, initiative under general user needs, and coverage of entire response sequences.

Abstract of Omni-InteractScope: Benchmarking Proactive and Agentic Interaction in Continuous Omnimodal Streams (arXiv:2610.35439, CC0)
12
Entries on its own leaderboard, 4 models we track

Gemini 3.5 Flash leads with 20.2% among models released by May 2026

Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.

The newest model with a score here came out in May 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Gemini 3.5 Flash input V, A 20.2%
  2. 2 Gemini 3.1 Pro input V, A 18.6%
  3. 3 Qwen3.5-Omni-Plus input V, A 13.9%
  4. 4 Qwen3-Omni input V, A 6.70%
  5. 5 InternVL3.5 input V+ASR 6.00%
  6. 6 MOSS-VL input V 5.40%
  7. 7 Qwen3-VL input V+ASR 5.10%
  8. 8 MiniCPM-o 4.5 input V, A 2.70%
  9. 9 Qwen2.5-Omni input V, A 2.30%
  10. 10 AURA input V 1.70%
  11. 11 MMDuet2 input V 1.60%
  12. 12 LiveCC input V 0.40%

Source: Official Omni-InteractScope Explicit Request leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Gemini 3.5 Flash 20.2% input V, A May 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Gemini 3.1 Pro 18.6% input V, A Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Qwen3.5-Omni-Plus 13.9% input V, A Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Qwen3-Omni 6.70% input V, A Official leaderboard
5 InternVL3.5 6.00% input V+ASR Official leaderboard
6 MOSS-VL 5.40% input V Official leaderboard
7 Qwen3-VL 5.10% input V+ASR Official leaderboard
8 MiniCPM-o 4.5 2.70% input V, A Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
9 Qwen2.5-Omni 2.30% input V, A Official leaderboard
10 AURA 1.70% input V Official leaderboard
11 MMDuet2 1.60% input V Official leaderboard
12 LiveCC 0.40% input V Official leaderboard

Number one over time

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

Google DeepMind
Own leaderboard 1 leader

Source: Official Omni-InteractScope Explicit Request leaderboard

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Gemini 3.5 Flash Gemini 3.1 Pro MiniCPM-o 4.5 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Gemini 3.5 Flash MiniCPM-o 4.5

Source: Official Omni-InteractScope Explicit Request leaderboard

No lab model card reports it yet

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.

More in Audio and video

All 232 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%
  • FLEURS In use Models transcribe read speech in 102 languages built from FLoRes-101 sentences. Model cards usually report word error rate, so lower scores are better. Phi-4-multimodal 4.00%
  • 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%