Existing VLMs have achieved strong performance in video understanding, yet they struggle with long-video spatiotemporal reasoning when target objects become invisible, often mistaking "invisible" for "unknown". We define this challenge as hidden-state spatiotemporal reasoning: inferring object states during prolonged invisible intervals from context interactions. To address this, we propose StateTrace, a novel object-centric framework that endows VideoLLMs with an explicit mechanism for hidden state reasoning in long videos. StateTrace builds a reusable spatiotemporal state memory that organizes object trajectories, inter-object relations, and state-transition events into a structured reasoning substrate. At inference time, it retrieves question-relevant state-evolution trajectories and converts them into compact reasoning cues, enabling the model to explicitly reason about why an object disappears, how its state evolves while invisible, and whether that state should persist at query time. We further build HSR-Bench, a diagnostic benchmark for hidden-state reasoning, containing 1,427 video-QA samples from 1,384 unique videos. Extensive experiments across multiple VideoLLMs show that StateTrace consistently improves performance on both public benchmarks and HSR-Bench (e.g., improving VideoLLaMA3 from 39.6 to 64.2 on HSR-Bench).
Figures & tables
Figure 1. A) Illustration of hidden-state spatiotemporal reasoning; B) StateTrace: Augmented with state summaries. The figure contains two panels. The first panel illustrates a target object becoming invisible in a long video. The second panel shows how StateTrace constructs and retrieves object-state summaries for answer generation.
Figure 2. Overview of StateTrace. The pipeline consists of three stages: (I) offline spatiotemporal state memory construction, (II) query-time retrieval and spatiotemporal evidence summarization, and (III) final answer generation with evidence. The figure illustrates the three-stage StateTrace pipeline. Stage I divides a long video into chunks and constructs an object-centric spatiotemporal memory containing semantic information, object trajectories, spatial relations, visibility changes, and state-transition events. Stage II retrieves question-relevant video chunks and memory records and summarizes them into semantic and spatial evidence. Stage III combines the retrieved visual evidence, the generated summaries, and the question as input to a VideoLLM for final answer generation.
Model
Size
MLVU
VideoMME
LVB
w/o sub.
w/ sub.
InternVL2.5 ( Chen et al., 2024c )
2B
61.4
51.9
54.1
52.0
InternVL2.5 + Video-RAG ( Luo et al., 2024 )
2B
62.4
52.4
54.8
53.1
InternVL2.5 + FlexSelect ( Zhang et al., 2025b )
2B
63.0
52.6
55.3
54.0
InternVL2.5 + StateTrace (Ours)
2B
64.0
52.8
56.0
56.3
VideoLLaMA3 ( Zhang et al., 2025a )
2B
65.4
59.6
63.4
57.1
Table 1. Main results on public video QA benchmarks. StateTrace is compared with base VideoLLMs and other enhancement methods across different benchmarks. The best result in each column is shown in bold.
Model
Size
HSR-Bench
InternVL2.5 ( Chen et al., 2024c )
2B
20.81
InternVL2.5 + Video-RAG ( Luo et al., 2024 )
2B
23.46
InternVL2.5 + FlexSelect ( Zhang et al., 2025b )
2B
26.18
InternVL2.5 + StateTrace (Ours)
2B
49.12
VideoLLaMA3 ( Zhang et al., 2025a )
2B
24.73
VideoLLaMA3 + Video-RAG ( Luo et al., 2024 )
2B
27.95
Table 2. Performance on HSR-Bench. StateTrace is compared with base VideoLLMs and representative enhancement methods. The best result is highlighted in bold.
Figure 3. Performance across video-length buckets on LongVideoBench. ST denotes the proposed StateTrace framework, and Overall is the weighted average accuracy across all duration buckets. The figure compares the accuracy of baseline VideoLLMs and their StateTrace-enhanced variants across multiple video-duration buckets on LongVideoBench. The final group reports the weighted average accuracy over all duration buckets.
Figure 4. Performance across occlusion-severity buckets on HSR-Bench. ST denotes StateTrace, and Overall is the weighted average accuracy over all samples. The figure compares the accuracy of baseline VideoLLMs and their StateTrace-enhanced variants across light, medium, and heavy occlusion severity buckets on HSR-Bench. The final group reports the weighted average accuracy over all samples.
Backbone
Size
Setting
MLVU
VideoMME
LVB
w/o sub.
w/ sub.
InternVL2.5 ( Chen et al., 2024c )
2B
w/o DispC
62.3
52.1
55.0
53.7
InternVL2.5
2B
Full
64.0
52.8
56.0
56.3
InternVL2.5
8B
w/o DispC
71.4
64.6
68.7
61.3
InternVL2.5
8B
Full
73.4
65.6
70.0
64.0
Qwen2.5-VL ( Bai et al., 2025b )
3B
w/o DispC
70.0
61.5
68.1
56.9
Table 3. Ablation on disappearance-cause reasoning under different backbones. DispC denotes disappearance-cause reasoning. The best result in each metric is shown in bold.
Backbone
Size
Setting
MLVU
VideoMME
LVB
w/o sub.
w/ sub.
InternVL2.5 ( Chen et al., 2024c )
2B
w/o SpS
61.8
51.8
54.4
52.9
InternVL2.5
2B
Full
64.0
52.8
56.0
56.3
InternVL2.5
8B
w/o SpS
70.8
64.2
68.2
60.8
InternVL2.5
8B
Full
73.4
65.6
70.0
64.0
Qwen2.5-VL ( Bai et al., 2025b )
3B
w/o SpS
69.5
61.1
67.8
56.1
Table 4. Ablation on spatial summary generation under different backbones. SpS denotes spatial summary. The best result in each metric column is shown in bold.
Figure 5. Two examples illustrating improved hidden-state spatiotemporal reasoning with StateTrace. The figure presents two qualitative examples comparing a baseline VideoLLaMA3-7B model with the StateTrace-enhanced version. The first example involves occlusion, where the model must infer the color of a car after it becomes temporarily hidden behind a black car. The second example involves containment, where the model must determine which cup contains the target nails after repeated exchanges. In both cases, the baseline model gives incorrect answers, while StateTrace preserves hidden object states and answers correctly.
Backbone
Size
Setting
MLVU
VideoMME
LVB
w/o sub.
w/ sub.
InternVL2.5 ( Chen et al., 2024c )
2B
w/o KCR
62.8
52.3
55.3
54.8
InternVL2.5
2B
Full
64.0
52.8
56.0
56.3
InternVL2.5
8B
w/o KCR
72.1
65.0
68.9
62.4
InternVL2.5
8B
Full
73.4
65.6
70.0
64.0
Qwen2.5-VL ( Bai et al., 2025b )
3B
w/o KCR
70.7
61.9
68.5
58.2
Table 5. Ablation on key clip retrieval under different backbones. KCR denotes key clip retrieval. The best result in each metric column is shown in bold.
Temporal video understanding studies how models track actions, events, and changes over time to answer questions, locate moments, and predict what happens next.
While multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have advanced video understanding, they remain highly prone to hallucinations in dynamic scenes. We argue this stems from a failure in spatio-temporal monitoring, the ability to persistently track object identities, states, and relations over time. Existing benchmarks obscure this deficit by relying on single final-answer evaluations for queries that can often be resolved via local visual cues or statistical priors. To rigorously diagnose this, we introduce STEMO-Bench (Spatio-TEmporal MOnitoring), a benchmark of human-verified object-centric facts that evaluates intermediate reasoning by decomposing queries into sub-questions, distinguishing genuine temporal understanding from coincidental correctness. To address failure modes exposed by STEMO, we propose STEMO-Track, a novel object-centric framework that explicitly constructs and reasons over structured object trajectories via chunk-wise state extraction and temporal aggregation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our object-centric framework significantly reduces hallucinated answers and improves spatio-temporal reasoning consistency over state-of-the-art MLLMs.
Tri Cao, Khoi Le, Thong Nguyen +7
National University of Singapore · VinUniversity · Nanyang Technological University
Long-video understanding remains challenging for Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) due to limited context length. Uniform sampling may miss crucial moments, while agent-based frame video understanding methods often evaluate frames independently, overlooking the temporal organization of videos. Ideally, evidence selection should mimic how humans answer questions about long videos: first locating the relevant segment from the global context, then zooming into local objects and details. We propose Temporal Tree of Thought T^3, a training-free framework for adaptive coarse-to-fine long-video understanding. T^3 constructs a question-agnostic hierarchical temporal tree via recursive temporally constrained clustering, where each node represents a contiguous segment with an informative key frame. During inference, T^3 performs an answer-retrieve-explore loop: it reasons over coarse representative frames, generates a search statement when evidence is insufficient, and expands relevant branches for finer-grained evidence. This process adaptively shifts the search target from temporal regions to specific objects and visual details to help video understanding. Experiments on VideoMME, LongVideoBench, and LVBench show that T^3 improves Qwen2.5-VL-7B by 0.5%, 4.6%, and 4.4%, respectively, under the same frame budget, demonstrating the effectiveness of structured temporal reasoning.
Real-world AI systems must reason about objects that are no longer visible: an AR assistant guiding a user back to an object used earlier, a household robot retrieving an item someone put away. This requires not just recalling where an object was last seen, but updating its state when it is moved and retaining that update once it leaves view. We refer to this as out-of-sight spatiotemporal reasoning. We introduce Beyond3D, the first VQA benchmark to isolate this ability in dynamic egocentric video: every query targets an object that has been relocated and has since left the field of view. We create our questions from HD-EPIC annotations, building a visibility track for each dynamic object from its 3D position, the camera pose, and the scene geometry to understand at each moment whether it is visible, occluded, or out of view. Beyond3D comprises 9,000 questions in eight types over 135 videos from nine participants, organized as one reasoning chain: visual grounding (is the target observable now), temporal grounding (when it was last visible and last placed), scene localization (which fixture anchors that location), and 3D spatial perception (where it lies relative to the current viewpoint or another object in the scene). We benchmark nine general-purpose and spatially specialized VLMs. The best model reaches 42.2% against 29.7% chance and text-only baselines reaching 31.9%, with the largest failures in recovering when an object was last visible, showing that tracking object movement out of sight remains far from solved for current VLMs.
Fangzhou Ma, Ivo Alexander Ban, Eren Homburg +5
ETH Zurich · Microsoft Spatial AI Lab · Bocconi University