VideoJudge: Bootstrapping Enables Scalable Supervision of MLLM-as-a-Judge for Video Understanding

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.21451v1
• Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 19:22:57 GMT
• Title: VideoJudge: Bootstrapping Enables Scalable Supervision of MLLM-as-a-Judge for Video Understanding
• Authors: Abdul Waheed, Zhen Wu, Dareen Alharthi, Seungone Kim, Bhiksha Raj,
• Abstract summary: We introduce VideoJudge, a 3B and 7B-sized MLLM judge specialized to evaluate outputs from video understanding models.<n>To train VideoJudge, our recipe builds on the interplay between a generator and an evaluator.<n>Across three out of four meta-evaluation benchmarks, VideoJudge-7B outperforms larger MLLM judge baselines.
• Score: 57.15309719147799
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Precisely evaluating video understanding models remains challenging: commonly used metrics such as BLEU, ROUGE, and BERTScore fail to capture the fineness of human judgment, while obtaining such judgments through manual evaluation is costly. Recent work has explored using large language models (LLMs) or multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) as evaluators, but their extension to video understanding remains relatively unexplored. In this work, we introduce VideoJudge, a 3B and 7B-sized MLLM judge specialized to evaluate outputs from video understanding models (\textit{i.e.}, text responses conditioned on videos). To train VideoJudge, our recipe builds on the interplay between a generator and an evaluator: the generator is prompted to produce responses conditioned on a target rating, and responses not matching the evaluator's rating are discarded. Across three out of four meta-evaluation benchmarks, VideoJudge-7B outperforms larger MLLM judge baselines such as Qwen2.5-VL (32B and 72B). Notably, we find that LLM judges (Qwen3) models perform worse than MLLM judges (Qwen2.5-VL) and long chain-of-thought reasoning does not improve performance, indicating that providing video inputs is crucial for evaluation of video understanding tasks.

Related papers

• Blind to the Human Touch: Overlap Bias in LLM-Based Summary Evaluation [89.52571224447111]
  Large language model (LLM) judges have often been used alongside traditional, algorithm-based metrics for tasks like summarization.<n>We provide an LLM judge bias analysis as a function of overlap with human-written responses in the domain of summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-07T19:39:28Z)
• JudgeBoard: Benchmarking and Enhancing Small Language Models for Reasoning Evaluation [13.831735556002426]
  Small language models (SLMs) have shown promise on various reasoning tasks.<n>Their ability to judge the correctness of answers remains unclear compared to large language models (LLMs)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-20T01:14:39Z)
• CodeJudgeBench: Benchmarking LLM-as-a-Judge for Coding Tasks [63.562924932512765]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced the state-of-the-art in various coding tasks.<n>LLMs can also serve as judges, assessing and comparing the quality of responses generated by other models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-14T17:56:29Z)
• VF-Eval: Evaluating Multimodal LLMs for Generating Feedback on AIGC Videos [5.529147924182393]
  We propose a new benchmark, VF-Eval, which introduces four tasks-coherence validation, error awareness, error type detection, and reasoning evaluation-to comprehensively evaluate the abilities of MLLMs on AIGC videos.<n>We evaluate 13 frontier MLLMs on VF-Eval and find that even the best-performing model, GPT-4.1, struggles to achieve consistently good performance across all tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T17:31:13Z)
• Leveraging LLMs as Meta-Judges: A Multi-Agent Framework for Evaluating LLM Judgments [6.270885758858811]
  Large language models (LLMs) are being widely applied across various fields, but as tasks become more complex, evaluating their responses is increasingly challenging.<n>We propose a three-stage meta-judge selection pipeline: 1) developing a comprehensive rubric with GPT-4 and human experts, 2) using three advanced LLM agents to score judgments, and 3) applying a threshold to filter out low-scoring judgments.<n> Experimental results on the JudgeBench dataset show about 15.55% improvement compared to raw judgments and about 8.37% improvement over the single-agent baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-23T20:32:12Z)
• Evaluating Judges as Evaluators: The JETTS Benchmark of LLM-as-Judges as Test-Time Scaling Evaluators [66.83088028268318]
  This paper introduces the Judge Evaluation for Test-Time Scaling benchmark.<n>It evaluates judge performance in three domains (math reasoning, code generation, and instruction following) under three task settings.<n>Our benchmark shows that while judges are competitive with outcome reward models in reranking, they are consistently worse than process reward models in beam search procedures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T17:33:23Z)
• MMBench-Video: A Long-Form Multi-Shot Benchmark for Holistic Video Understanding [67.56182262082729]
  We introduce MMBench-Video, a quantitative benchmark to rigorously evaluate large vision-language models (LVLMs) in video understanding. MMBench-Video incorporates lengthy videos from YouTube and employs free-form questions, mirroring practical use cases. The benchmark is meticulously crafted to probe the models' temporal reasoning skills, with all questions human-annotated according to a carefully constructed ability taxonomy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T17:26:01Z)
• Needle In A Video Haystack: A Scalable Synthetic Evaluator for Video MLLMs [20.168429351519055]
  Video understanding is a crucial next step for multimodal large language models (LMLMs)<n>We propose VideoNIAH (Video Needle In A Haystack), a benchmark construction framework through synthetic video generation.<n>We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of both proprietary and open-source models, uncovering significant differences in their video understanding capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T17:50:05Z)
• SEED-Bench-2: Benchmarking Multimodal Large Language Models [67.28089415198338]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have recently demonstrated exceptional capabilities in generating not only texts but also images given interleaved multimodal inputs. SEED-Bench-2 comprises 24K multiple-choice questions with accurate human annotations, which spans 27 dimensions. We evaluate the performance of 23 prominent open-source MLLMs and summarize valuable observations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-28T05:53:55Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.