Vision-language models (VLMs) can increasingly handle extended contexts and answer questions about long videos—but can they understand the narrative structure of movies as humans do? To investigate this question, we introduce MF² (Movie Facts and Fibs), a fully manually curated benchmark designed to evaluate whether models can identify, recall, and comprehend information central to the movie’s storyline, using both the visual and textual modalities. MF² includes over 50 open-licensed movies, each paired with manually constructed sets of claim pairs: one true claim (fact) and one plausible but false (fib), totaling over 850 pairs. Our analysis across 20 open-source and 2 proprietary models reveals a substantial gap relative to human performance. While subtitles provide a strong signal for narrative understanding, other textual sources (e.g., synopses) are less informative. In contrast, when visual information is distributed across the entire movie and jointly embedded with subtitles, models struggle to identify and effectively use the relevant content. However, when the visual input is restricted to claim-relevant visual content, models improve significantly, indicating substantial room for improvement in processing large multimodal contexts and distinguishing relevant from irrelevant information. Overall, our findings highlight persistent challenges in multimodal narrative understanding for current VLMs. We release our data and code to support further research in this direction.

There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLMs instead of human judgments, raising questions about the validity of these evaluations, as well as their reproducibility in the case of proprietary models. We provide JUDGE-BENCH, an extensible collection of 20 NLP datasets with human annotations covering a broad range of evaluated properties and types of data, and comprehensively evaluate 11 current LLMs, covering both open-weight and proprietary models, for their ability to replicate the annotations. Our evaluations show substantial variance across models and datasets. Models are reliable evaluators on some tasks, but overall display substantial variability depending on the property being evaluated, the expertise level of the human judges, and whether the language is human or model-generated. We conclude that LLMs should be carefully validated against human judgments before being used as evaluators.

Visual storytelling consists in generating a natural language story given a temporally ordered sequence of images. This task is not only challenging for models, but also very difficult to evaluate with automatic metrics since there is no consensus about what makes a story ‘good’. In this paper, we introduce a novel method that measures story quality in terms of human likeness regarding three key aspects highlighted in previous work: visual grounding, coherence, and repetitiveness. We then use this method to evaluate the stories generated by several models, showing that the foundation model LLaVA obtains the best result, but only slightly so compared to TAPM, a 50-times smaller visual storytelling model. Upgrading the visual and language components of TAPM results in a model that yields competitive performance with a relatively low number of parameters. Finally, we carry out a human evaluation study, whose results suggest that a ‘good’ story may require more than a human-like level of visual grounding, coherence, and repetition.

A proper evaluation of stories generated for a sequence of images—the task commonly referred to as visual storytelling—must consider multiple aspects, such as coherence, grammatical correctness, and visual grounding. In this work, we focus on evaluating the degree of grounding, that is, the extent to which a story is about the entities shown in the images. We analyze current metrics, both designed for this purpose and for general vision-text alignment. Given their observed shortcomings, we propose a novel evaluation tool, GROOViST, that accounts for cross-modal dependencies, temporal misalignments (the fact that the order in which entities appear in the story and the image sequence may not match), and human intuitions on visual grounding. An additional advantage of GROOViST is its modular design, where the contribution of each component can be assessed and interpreted individually.