TOMATO
Models answer 1,484 human-written questions about 1,417 videos that need visual temporal reasoning, such as action counts, direction, rotation and velocity. Scored by accuracy.
Published at ICLR 2025. At release the best model trailed humans by 57.3 points.
In the authors’ words
Existing benchmarks often highlight the remarkable performance achieved by state-of-the-art Multimodal Foundation Models (MFMs) in leveraging temporal context for video understanding. However, how well do the models truly perform visual temporal reasoning? Our study of existing benchmarks shows that this capability of MFMs is likely overestimated as many questions can be solved by using a single, few, or out-of-order frames. To systematically examine current visual temporal reasoning tasks, we propose three principles with corresponding metrics: (1) Multi-Frame Gain, (2) Frame Order Sensitivity, and (3) Frame Information Disparity. Following these principles, we introduce TOMATO, Temporal Reasoning Multimodal Evaluation, a novel benchmark crafted to rigorously assess MFMs' temporal reasoning capabilities in video understanding. TOMATO comprises 1,484 carefully curated, human-annotated questions spanning six tasks (i.e., action count, direction, rotation, shape & trend, velocity & frequency, and visual cues), applied to 1,417 videos, including 805 self-recorded and -generated videos, that encompass human-centric, real-world, and simulated scenarios. Our comprehensive evaluation reveals a human-model performance gap of 57.3% with the best-performing model. Moreover, our in-depth analysis uncovers more fundamental limitations beyond this gap in current MFMs. While they can accurately recognize events in isolated frames, they fail to interpret these frames as a continuous sequence. We believe TOMATO will serve as a crucial testbed for evaluating the next-generation MFMs and as a call to the community to develop AI systems capable of comprehending human world dynamics through the video modality.
- 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
- Multiple choice
Seed2.1 Pro leads with 79.5% among models released by Jun 2026
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.
The newest model with a score here came out in Jun 2026, and nobody has reported a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Terra
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- and 16 more
- 1
Seed2.1 Pro 79.5%
- 2
Seed2.0 Lite (0428) 72.5%
- 3
Seed1.8 60.8%
- 4
Seed2.0 Pro 59.9%
- 5
Seed1.5-VL 44.7%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 79.5% | Jun 2026 | Model card | |
| 2 | | 72.5% | Apr 2026 | Model card | |
| 3 | | 60.8% | Dec 2025 | Model card | |
| 4 | | 59.9% | Feb 2026 | Model card | |
| 5 | | 44.7% | May 2025 | Model card |
The benchmark's own leaderboard has 31 entries, 22 of them models we track. We plot every source in the charts below.
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release. We draw one row each for the benchmark’s own leaderboard and what labs claim in their cards.
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Labs headline it less often now, last in Jun 2026
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 23 Jun 2026 | 79.5 | TOMATO | |
| 28 Apr 2026 | 72.5 | TOMATO | |
| 18 Dec 2025 | 60.8 | TOMATO | |
| 12 May 2025 | 44.7 | TOMATO |
4 system cards report it, from 1 lab
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 Jun 2026 | | 79.5 | TOMATO (Table 10) | Capabilities |
| 21 Mar 2026 | | 60.8 | TOMATO (Table 3). The 2.2 text says 60.6 | Capabilities |
| 14 Feb 2026 | | 59.9 | TOMATO 59.9, 65.3 with the Thinking with Tracking prompt (Table 9) | Capabilities |
| 11 May 2025 | | 44.7 | TOMATO, thinking (Table 7). Non-thinking 44.2 | Capabilities |
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%