Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study introduces CHRONOSIGHT, a benchmark designed to evaluate the temporal reasoning capabilities of vision-language models (VLMs) across five dimensions of visual temporal reasoning. The evaluation reveals a significant performance gap, termed "chronological blindness," where the best-performing VLM achieves only 0.40 accuracy compared to human performance averaging 0.89. Fine-tuning with lightweight LoRA on a small dataset improves model accuracy on specific tasks, indicating that the challenges in temporal reasoning are more related to instruction following than visual perception itself.
VLMs exhibit "chronological blindness," achieving only 40% of human-level performance in temporal reasoning tasks, highlighting a critical gap in their capabilities.
Human perception of visual scenes is inherently temporal. We instinctively recognise whether a fruit is ripening or rotting, whether construction is progressing or being demolished, and approximately how much time separates two photographs of the same subject. Whether large vision-language models (VLMs) share this competence remains an open and practically important question. We introduce CHRONOSIGHT, a rigorously controlled benchmark evaluating five dimensions of visual temporal reasoning: CHRONORANK (chronological ordering of image sequences), CHRONOLOCATE (ordinal stage localisation from a single image), CHRONODELTA (estimation of time elapsed between two images on a logarithmic scale), CHRONOREVERSE (detection of temporally reversed sequences), and CHRONOODD (identification of a temporal outlier within a set). The benchmark comprises 1{,}000 items across eight process families (biological growth, food transformation, physical weathering, construction, environmental change, human ageing, astronomical phenomena, and urban dynamics) spanning timescales from minutes to millennia. We evaluate eight open-source VLMs (500 M to 19 B parameters) under two prompting regimes and collect human performance baselines. Human performance averages 0.89 across tasks; the best open model (Qwen2.5-VL-7B) reaches 0.40 under direct prompting, a gap we term chronological blindness. Lightweight LoRA fine-tuning on 151 examples raises CHRONODELTA accuracy from near-zero to 0.43, transferring zero-shot to related tasks (CHRONOODD: 0.37; CHRONOREVERSE: 0.64)suggesting the bottleneck is partly instruction following rather than visual perception. Benchmark, code, and predictions will be released upon acceptance.