Video-language models can answer multiple-choice questions with high confidence yet be wrong. We study whether answer-level reliability scores can be improved under target shift without retraining the models or changing their answers. We collect option-probability lists from three fixed video-language models under four deterministic video samplings and represent cross-view changes and cross-model agreement as a response graph. Using a labeled target pilot, we compare the original score, defined as the probability assigned to the chosen answer, with a histogram-based gradient-boosting (HGB) score trained on the development datasets and a regularized logistic-regression score trained on the target pilot. A candidate replaces the original score only when repeated video-level checks indicate a positive, stable improvement. We develop this rule on public VideoQA benchmarks and Video Hallucination Diagnosis (VHD), a controlled diagnostic dataset for shared high-confidence errors. Ranking quality is measured by the area under the risk-coverage curve (AURC), where lower is better. On a held-out 963-question HERBench split, the method reduces mean AURC across the three models by 16.64% (95% confidence interval (CI), 12.12 to 22.61%); the smallest model-level gain is 11.39%. On a separate held-out 911-question Perception Test split, the mean reduction is 18.87% (95% CI, 15.43 to 22.14%). For InternVL3.5, the target check retains the original scores. Using the same outputs, the method outperforms seven training-free baselines in mean AURC on both datasets. It also improves AUROC, reduces calibration error, and lowers the error rate at 50% coverage by 6.50 and 6.58 percentage points.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Workflow for target-checked reliability score refinement.
Dataset
Questions
Video groups
Answer options
Model families
Role
NExT-GQA
500
500
5
3
Method development and training
STAR
500
500
4
3
Method development and training
MVBench
1,800
1,723
2 to 4
3
Method development and training
VHD (ours)
801
341
2
3
Method development, training, and diagnostic analysis
TempCompass
410
410
2
3
Method development and training
Video-MME
1,089
363
4
3
Pre-revision evaluation
Table 1: Dataset roles and video-grouping units used in the study.
Method
Mean gain
Worst
Positive
Negative
Logistic score, all graph features
11.61%
−16.48 %
12
3
Permuted relation labels
10.03%
−15.90 %
12
3
Other models, base view
9.84%
−13.19 %
12
3
Pre-revision rule
6.95%
0.00%
7
0
Copied other-model responses
3.73%
−7.98 %
10
5
Original score
0.00%
0.00%
0
0
Table 2: Leave-one-dataset-out results on the five development datasets.
Figure 2: VHD consensus diagnostic with 95% source-clip bootstrap intervals.
Evaluation
Method
Settings
Mean
Worst
Learned
Development
Pre-revision
15
6.95%
0.00%
7
Video-MME
Pre-revision
3
10.95%
0.00%
2
EgoSchema
Pre-revision
3
19.81%
0.00%
2
EgoSchema
Lower-cost
3
19.52%
0.00%
2
Video-MME-v2
Pre-revision
3
0.09%
−1.22 %
2
Video-MME-v2
Lower-cost
3
0.10%
−1.34 %
2
Table 3: Results under protocols fixed before the target-check revision.
Policy
Mean
Worst
Gain >0
Original kept
Check
Target pilot only
0.47%
−0.62 %
30.0%
66.7%
Fail
Three candidates
0.92%
−0.65 %
28.3%
65.0%
Pass
Two candidates, no margin
0.96%
−1.49 %
33.3%
65.0%
Fail
Final rule
0.99%
0.00%
33.3%
66.7%
Pass
Table 4: Video-MME-v2 target-check development at the 50% pilot fraction.
Pilot
Mean
Worst
Gain >0
Original kept
25%
0.32%
0.00%
13.3%
86.7%
35%
0.33%
0.00%
13.3%
86.7%
50%
0.99%
0.00%
33.3%
66.7%
Table 5: Pilot-fraction sensitivity during Video-MME-v2 development.
Video question answering systems built on vision-language models often produce timestamped claims with high confidence even when unsupported by the cited frame. This deceptive hallucination arises because timestamps imply grounding without ensuring correctness, increasing user trust but not accuracy. We introduce a pipeline that closes this loop. A retrieval-augmented language model drafts answers with per-claim timestamp citations, and each cited frame is independently re-examined before being shown to the user. We compare against a plain baseline and ablate three verification designs, evaluated on both Apple Silicon (MLX) and Google Colab (HF Transformers, CUDA). Directly asking the vision model whether a frame supports a claim fails completely (0% catch rate on 40 claims) due to sycophancy. Blind re-captioning plus a general LLM judge improves results but is unstable, oscillating between 0% and 100% flagged depending on prompt phrasing. Replacing that judge with a small natural language inference model yields a stable, interpretable verifier that catches 79% of fabricated claims on adversarial false-premise questions while leaving true claims untouched. We release the full pipeline, evaluation harness, and implementations for both Apple Silicon and Colab. Code is available at https://github.com/yogesh-iitj/grounded-video-qa.
In this report, we present our solution for Track 2 of the CVPR 2026 VidLLMs Challenge. This track evaluates visual relational reasoning in videos, where models must infer relations that are not always explicitly visible. We propose Answer Self-Consistency with Margin-Triggered Question Re-Arbitration (ASC-MQRA), a training-free test-time reasoning framework built on a multimodal reasoning model. The core ASC component performs multiple stochastic video question-answering runs and aggregates their answer choices through answer-level self-consistency. This substantially improves over single-pass inference and forms our final test submission. We further study MQRA, a conditional re-arbitration module for low-margin examples where the first-stage vote distribution indicates uncertainty. Our vote-margin analysis shows that low-margin examples often retain the ground-truth answer among the top candidates, motivating MQRA to narrow the candidate set and re-watch the video only over the retained candidates. On validation, MQRA further improves over ASC, indicating that low-margin vote distributions can provide a useful uncertainty signal. On test, however, MQRA slightly degrades performance relative to ASC, suggesting that re-arbitration is sensitive to the size and category distribution of the triggered subset. Our final test submission therefore uses ASC without re-arbitration, achieving 72.73 average accuracy and 78.34 category-wise macro average accuracy on validation, and 81.16 average accuracy and 80.91 category-wise macro average accuracy on test. This report details our prompting strategy, implementation setup, ablation studies, and diagnostic analyses. The code is available at https://github.com/data-analytics-labo/ASC-MQRA
Reliable reward models are essential for text-to-video evaluation and alignment. However, the trade-off between evaluation accuracy and inference efficiency places high demands on the quality of training supervision. Existing approaches often rely on holistic judges with fixed rubrics or open-ended reasoning, leading to incomplete inspection, unfaithful justification, and entangled attribution. We introduce FIRM-Video, a unified checklist-driven data construction framework based on a check-before-score principle: construct dimension-specific checklists, verify each criterion against temporal visual evidence, and aggregate only verified decisions. For Instruction Following, FIRM-Video decomposes prompts into weighted atomic requirements; for World Coherence, it constructs prompt-calibrated, target-specific checks grounded in visible entities and actions; and for Perceptual Quality, it applies a generic taxonomy of visual defects. The verified criteria and scores are further transformed into natural-language analyses for end-to-end reward modeling. Subsequently, we construct FIRM-Video-90K with 88,044 dimension-specific instances from 29,348 videos, and introduce FIRM-Video-Bench with 750 point-wise human annotations across 250 videos. The Qwen3-VL-based FIRM-Video-8B achieves the best overall MAE on FIRM-Video-Bench while consistently delivering the highest VBench Total, Quality, and Semantic Scores in Best-of-8 sampling across three video generators.
Peiyuan Zhang, Xiangyu Zhao, Hongbo Liu +8
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Tencent Youtu Lab · Tongji University