Original title: TempCloze: Can Video-LLMs Identify the Missing Middle?
Wenqi Pei, Henry Hengyuan Zhao, Yilai Liu, Jiahao Meng +3 · September 2026
Video artificial intelligence models often take shortcuts. When testing their sense of time, benchmarks use written text, so models can guess answers using word clues instead of watching the video. To fix this, researchers built TempCloze. They show a model the start and end of a video and ask it to pick the correct missing middle clip from four choices. The clips share scenes and objects to stop easy guesses based on looks. The creators tested 10 proprietary and 21 open-source models across three tasks: what happens, when it happens, and how it unfolds. They found that figuring out when events happen is the biggest bottleneck. Models understand the general action and progression, but struggle to align events correctly in time.
Imagine you're watching a story where the middle chapter is torn out, and you have to guess what happened from the first and last pages. The hard part isn't knowing the characters or the plot, but placing the events in the right order. In this paper, video AI models are given the start and end of a video and must pick the correct missing scene, but they struggle most with getting the timing right, not the content.
This work matters because video AI systems can be tricked by word patterns instead of truly understanding event timing. If they rely on shortcuts, they might misinterpret videos in tasks like summarization or analysis where sequence is critical.
The abstract doesn't state specific limitations, but it notes that TempCloze uses mainly long-take and egocentric videos from seven sources, which may not represent all video content or domains.
Ask anything about this paper. Answers come from its abstract, and say so when the abstract doesn't cover your question.
TempCloze: Can Video-LLMs Identify the Missing Middle? — Wenqi Pei, Henry Hengyuan Zhao, Yilai Liu et al.
Abstract licence: CC0
Explanation generated by Synthesis from the abstract — it is not the original paper. This is a preprint, so it hasn't necessarily been peer reviewed.