AgenticVBench · agentic omnimodal understanding

Contribute a task.
Co-author the papers.

One or multiple videos, one unambiguous question, and a deterministic scorer. Build one to the standard and it merges. Discuss your idea with our agent first — it takes a couple of minutes and saves you days.

Submit by July 31 to make the first batch

Why join the first batch

Real credit, and people who show up.

Closes July 31, 2026

Your name on the ICLR paper

We submit to ICLR this September. Every task that merges before the deadline goes in, credited to you. Land two and you co-author both the benchmark and the survey.

In person

We give back to the community

We co-host events in San Francisco and at the major ML conferences, together with frontier labs and other AI infrastructure companies. Come learn, share what you are building, and meet the people behind it.

No busywork

One good task is plenty

About 10 hours of focused work, on average. One task that passes review is worth more than ten thin ones.

What makes a task

Hard, long, and impossible to fake.

Long horizon

A real strong-agent attempt takes more than 50 tool-call turns — the answer lives across the whole video, not one lookup.

Hard for the right reason

A strong current agent scores below 0.10; your oracle scores 1.0 and an empty attempt near 0. Difficulty comes from the skill, not trick wording.

Deterministically scored

Pure code grades the answer — no VLM or LLM judge — strict enough that guessing scores about 0.

No shortcuts

Recall of famous footage, on-screen graphics, a single frame, or no media at all must not solve it.

Step 1 · discuss your proposal

Is your idea hard enough? Ask before you build.

Describe the video and the question you have in mind. The agent checks it against the bar — difficulty and long horizon first — and suggests the smallest change that would sharpen it.

Proposal agent · checks difficulty & long-horizon fit

Try one of these:

Steps 2–3 · build and calibrate

Build the task, then calibrate it.

Build in the repo, then run it against real agents and grade them. Iterate the two until every agent is well below the bar — that loop is the work.

Step 2 · build

  • Gather one or more real videos and write one unambiguous question.
  • Write the oracle solution — it scores 1.0, while an empty attempt scores near 0.
  • Write the deterministic verifier: pure code, no VLM or LLM judge.
  • Ablate the shortcuts — famous footage, on-screen graphics, or a single frame must not solve it.

Step 3 · calibrate (the loop)

  • Iterate with Codex (GPT 5.6 Sol) first — it is the most efficient, so the loop is fast.
  • If it clears 0.10, or solves the task in under ~50 turns, tighten the task and re-run.
  • Once it meets the bar, also run Antigravity (Gemini 3.5 Flash, Gemini 3.1 Pro) and Claude Code (Fable 5, Opus 4.8).
  • Save each full raw trajectory (not summaries) and grade it with your verifier.
  • Done when all three score below 0.10 over 50+ tool-call turns.
# save the raw trajectory per harness
claude -p "$(cat instruction.md)" --verbose \
  --output-format stream-json > rollouts/claude.jsonl
codex exec --json "$(cat instruction.md)" > rollouts/codex.jsonl
agy -p "$(cat instruction.md)" --model gemini-3.5-flash \
  --log-file rollouts/antigravity.log

Document every run in calibration/scores.md as a performance table: harness, harness version, model, reasoning effort, score, tool-call turns, trajectory file.

Step 4 · submit

Open a PR before July 31.

Open a pull request adding your task folder — the prompt, the verifier, the oracle, and your calibration bundle: the raw trajectories plus a performance table in calibration/scores.md (harness, harness version, model, reasoning effort, score, tool-call turns, trajectory file) for Antigravity, Codex, and Claude Code. A maintainer reviews and merges — and you are on the paper.

FAQ

Questions contributors actually ask.

What exactly is a task?+

A task is three things:

  1. A task prompt: what the agent is asked to do.
  2. Media sources: one or multiple videos, with optional additional files.
  3. A deterministic verifier: checks the agent output and gives a score, 0 to 1.
Which sub-applications fit the omnimodal-understanding wave?+

Think about future smart devices: glasses and earbuds that see and hear what you do, acting as a friend or coach that teaches you volleyball, watches a match with you, or helps you learn guitar. Or security cameras in a robotics company or factory, in the wild (animals, extreme weather), even in space or a virtual 3d world. Some examples:

  • Sports analytics: rep counting, form scoring, play or event detection.
  • Robotics understanding: did the action succeed, object and state tracking.
  • Game understanding: read game state, score, or events from footage.
  • Security camera: detect an event, count, or localize it in time.
  • Detective and reasoning: who did what and when, inferred across clips.
  • Music video understanding: cuts, beats, performers, and how the visuals sync to the music.

And more: if your field has video with a checkable answer, it fits.

What are the anti-shortcut ablations?+

Run a strong model under each degraded input; every run must score near the null baseline. They matter for two reasons: they prove the task has no shortcut, and they show which modalities the answer really needs. Is it video, audio, or audio-visual understanding at the seam? If any ablation scores well, fix the task, not the threshold.

  1. Single frame only.
  2. Video-only and audio-only (for audio-visual tasks): this pair is what separates true audio-visual understanding from single-modality tasks.
  3. No media at all: catches recall and guessable schemas.
  4. All frames pasted, no tools: proves agency matters.
What common pitfalls bounce a task in PR review?+

The ones we keep seeing:

  1. The answer key baked into the agent's image. Keep it verifier-side under steps/solve/tests/, where the agent can never read it.
  2. Simulated or argued ablation numbers. Every ablation must be a real measured run.
  3. Calibrating outside the shipped environment. Local runs are fine only in an isolated env with the image's exact libraries and the same harness and model versions.
  4. Padding turn counts with prompt instructions like “use at least 51 turns”. If the task finishes too fast, harden the task.
  5. Fields no agent could ever get right (off-camera events, blurred-out scoreboards, hidden state). Verify every ground-truth event is actually observable in the media.
  6. Committing thousands of lines of reward dumps. One raw trajectory per agent plus scores.md is the convention.
My Gemini runs score suspiciously well, or answer without watching. What is happening?+

Two known behaviors. Gemini 3.1 Pro sometimes skips the media entirely and fabricates a confident answer in a handful of tool calls. Gemini 3.5 Flash can silently fall back to Google Search grounding when stuck; this happens server-side at API runtime, so no container network policy can see or block it. Telltales: an answer matching every public box-score field while missing only the fields no public record has, or “I will search for ...” in the output. Countermeasures: state the no-lookup, no-memory rule clearly in the system prompt (this measurably helps), audit every raw trajectory before trusting a score, and disable grounding in the Gemini API if you control the key.

Can I use an LLM or VLM judge for omnimodal-understanding tasks?+

No by default. Omnimodal-understanding scorers must be deterministic code (Python stdlib, or at most a small CV model), strict enough that guessing scores about 0. If you truly find it difficult to design a deterministic verifier for your idea, check with our team first: book a QA / office-hours slot through the calendar link.