Catching Hallucinated Citations in Video-LLM Question Answering: A Self-Verification Pipeline and Verifier Ablation Study

On-screen text can describe what a video shows, or it can frame what the video is supposed to mean. Current benchmarks treat both alike, testing whether a model can read the text rather than whether it should trust it. We study claim deference, multimodal large language models' tendency to let an on-screen claim override conflicting visual evidence. We introduce VisualTrust, a counterfactual benchmark with 5,063 cases across 14 claim-fact classes. Each case pairs a question with three versions of the same video: one with no claim, one with an accurate claim, and one with a misleading claim that alters a single grounded fact. The option the misleading claim supports is the trap answer. Across seven open-weight and four proprietary models, mean accuracy falls from 90.1% without a claim to 51.9% with a misleading claim. Among initially correct responses, 42.8% flip to the trap answer and only 0.6% become other errors. Strong no-claim accuracy does not ensure resistance. We also introduce DEAR (Decoupled Evidence Arbitration and Reading), a training-free agent for video question answering that separates evidence arbitration from reading. An independent check reports conflicting evidence, a selector weighs it without a fixed modality priority and blinds what it withholds, and the reader answers from the resulting video in a fresh context. On 500 videos across three proprietary models, DEAR raises accuracy under misleading claims from 47.2--64.0% to 81.8--85.2% and reduces trap-answer selection from 34.4--50.8% to 11.6--15.0%, while preserving no-claim accuracy.

Video-language models and video agents can produce hallucinations that conflict with spatiotemporal evidence. Existing benchmarks mainly evaluate model hallucinations, and heterogeneous mechanisms make detector reliability difficult to compare. We introduce VidHalLoc, a benchmark that evaluates hallucination detection methods under a unified diagnostic evaluation protocol using 2,000 adversarial hallucination samples across Video Question Answering and Video Captioning tasks, spanning Ontology and Dynamic hallucination categories. To construct VidHalLoc efficiently, we introduce VideoHALO, a Harness Engineering-informed multi-agent workflow that decomposes data construction into four executable stages supported by a memory system and a communication protocol. Evaluation of fifteen methods reveals that the four dedicated detectors peak at an Overall accuracy of only 34.63%, indicating limited reliability across video hallucination types [Dataset Repository: https://huggingface.co/datasets/wesfggfd/VidHalLoc].

Despite rapid progress, Video Large Language Models (Video-LLMs) remain unreliable due to hallucinations, which are outputs that contradict either video evidence (faithfulness) or verifiable world knowledge (factuality). Existing benchmarks provide limited coverage of factuality hallucinations and predominantly evaluate models only in clean settings. We introduce INFACT, a diagnostic benchmark comprising 9{,}800 QA instances with fine-grained taxonomies for faithfulness and factuality, spanning real and synthetic videos. INFACT evaluates models in four modes: Base (clean), Visual Degradation, Evidence Corruption, and Temporal Intervention for order-sensitive items. Reliability under induced modes is quantified using Resist Rate (RR) and Temporal Sensitivity Score (TSS). Experiments on 14 representative Video-LLMs reveal that higher Base-mode accuracy does not reliably translate to higher reliability in the induced modes, with evidence corruption reducing stability and temporal intervention yielding the largest degradation. Notably, many open-source baselines exhibit near-zero TSS on factuality, indicating pronounced temporal inertia on order-sensitive questions.