Video vision-language models (VLMs) have strong semantic understanding, yet remain unreliable at precise temporal grounding. Existing gains from explicitly aligning video frames with absolute time suggest that VLMs may already encode accurate temporal locations internally but lose precision when expressing them as timestamps. Our analysis across four VLMs and two grounding datasets confirms this hypothesis: attention intervals outperform predicted intervals on approximately 66% of valid examples. We term this discrepancy the temporal generation gap. Because precise temporal annotations are expensive, this finding motivates closing the gap to improve temporal grounding using only unlabeled video-query pairs. We propose Self-Supervised Attention Policy Optimization (SAPO), which uses internal temporal attention as self-supervision for Group Relative Policy Optimization and applies a ground-truth-free criterion to select high-value samples. SAPO consistently improves temporal grounding across multiple datasets and models spanning weak to strong initial grounding ability. Relative mIoU gains reach 33.7% on Qwen2.5-VL-3B and 5.4% on the strong Time-R1-7B. The improvements transfer across datasets while preserving general video understanding.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Attention knows better than prediction. The attention-decoded interval Ia can localize the queried event more accurately than the generated interval Ip . SAPO uses attention as supervisor to improve native timestamp prediction without temporal-boundary annotations during training.
Model
Data
Attn. wins †
Attn. mIoU
Pred. mIoU
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
Charades
65.0
39.5
36.5
ActivityNet
71.0
32.8
24.6
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
Charades
62.0
46.1
43.6
ActivityNet
67.0
32.4
27.4
InternVL3-2B
Charades
79.0
39.2
15.2
ActivityNet
64.0
23.9
16.9
Table 1: The temporal generation gap across models and datasets. Attn. wins † is the fraction of valid samples where IoU(Ia,Ig)>IoU(Ip,Ig) , excluding all-zero ties.All values are percentages.
Figure 2: Average temporal intervals visualize the generation gap. Each panel overlays the average ground-truth interval, the average predicted interval, and the average attention interval for one model–dataset pair. The attention interval is consistently closer to the ground-truth region than the explicit prediction.
Figure 3: Conventional TVG training and our annotation-free alternative. Top: Conventional TVG post-training relies on ground-truth temporal boundaries, using them either as supervised targets for fine-tuning or as rewards for reinforcement learning. Bottom: SAPO instead derives self-supervision from the VLM’s internal temporal attention to improve the model’s temporal grounding ability without ground-truth boundaries.
Figure 4: Attention lead rate increases monotonically with attention–prediction JS divergence. The rate is computed over all samples, with ties retained as non-leads.
Table 5: Ablation of SAPO . The first eight columns evaluate predicted intervals, while the last two report the mIoU of attention intervals. Variants 1–5 are discussed in the same order in the ablation analysis. Best and second-best results are marked in bold and underlined, respectively.
Figure 5: SAPO moves the average predicted interval toward the ground-truth temporal region.
Figure 6: SAPO preferentially improves samples whose base attention is more accurate than their base prediction.
Table 6: Downstream TVG performance under different training-set selection strategies . The variants differ only in the selected training samples; Δ denotes the relative mIoU improvement over the base model.
Figure 7: Comparison of selection metrics.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Dataset
Layer
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
Charades-STA
L28
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
ActivityNet
L28
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
Charades-STA
L22
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
ActivityNet
L22
Qwen3-VL-4B
Charades-STA
L24
Qwen3-VL-4B
ActivityNet
L24
Appendix
Table 7: Attention layers used for temporal interval decoding. A representative middle-to-late layer is specified without ground-truth layer selection and kept fixed across both datasets and all experiments.
Attention Better
Prediction Better
Tie (Both Zero)
Model
Dataset
TAD
PTD
TAD
PTD
TAD
PTD
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
Charades-STA
0.515
0.268
0.298
0.663
0.000
0.000
InternVL3-2B
Charades-STA
0.489
0.077
0.227
0.511
0.000
0.000
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
Charades-STA
0.587
0.346
0.368
0.689
0.000
0.000
Qwen3-VL-4B
Charades-STA
0.617
0.359
0.360
0.660
0.000
0.000
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
ActivityNet-Captions
0.412
0.124
0.270
0.656
0.000
0.000
Appendix
Table 8: Pre-SAPO group-wise attention–prediction accuracy (mIoU). Queries are grouped by comparing the ground-truth IoU of TAD and PTD.
Dataset
Group
Samples
Share
TAD mIoU
PTD mIoU
Charades-STA
Attention better (TAD > PTD)
1,682
45.2%
0.565
0.352
Prediction better (PTD > TAD)
1,745
46.9%
0.310
0.535
Tie (TAD = PTD)
293
7.9%
0.000
0.000
ActivityNet-Captions
Attention better (TAD > PTD)
1,689
42.2%
0.454
0.250
Prediction better (PTD > TAD)
1,957
48.9%
0.293
0.457
Tie (TAD = PTD)
354
8.9%
0.000
0.000
Appendix
Table 9: Post-SAPO attention–prediction group statistics. Queries are grouped by comparing the ground-truth IoU of TAD and PTD. TAD mIoU and PTD mIoU are computed within each group.
Figure 8: Diagnostic sensitivity analysis for Qwen2.5-VL-3B on Charades-STA, shown as a representative example. We report the attention lead rate : the fraction of examples on which the attention interval attains a higher IoU with the ground truth than the model’s own predicted interval, excluding ties. (a) The lead rate remains stable across the examined middle-to-late layers. (b) The same conclusion holds across a range of attention-mass thresholds around the fixed value 0.5 .
Setting
Charades
ActivityNet
Qwen2.5-VL-3B + SAPO
40.9 ± 0.3
32.8 ± 0.4
Qwen2.5-VL-7B + SAPO
46.1 ± 0.2
33.3 ± 0.4
Time-R1-7B + SAPO
53.2 ± 0.2
46.7 ± 0.3
SAPO from test sets
42.0 ± 0.3
33.9 ± 0.4
Random selection
39.5 ± 0.3
31.1 ± 0.4
JS selection
40.9 ± 0.3
32.8 ± 0.4
Appendix
Table 10: Run-to-run stability (mIoU, mean ± std.).
Model
Video-MME Acc.
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
58.0
+ SAPO
57.4 ± 0.3
Time-R1-7B
60.1
+ SAPO
60.3 ± 0.2
Appendix
Table 11: General-ability stability across SAPO runs (accuracy, mean ± std.).
Understanding causal event relationships and achieving fine-grained temporal grounding in videos remain challenging for vision-language models (VLMs). We propose TEMPURA (Temporal Event Masked Prediction and Understanding for Reasoning in Action), a two-stage training framework that enhances the video temporal understanding of VLMs. Inspired by infilling techniques in language modeling, TEMPURA first performs masked event prediction, learning to reconstruct missing events and generate step-by-step causal explanations from dense event annotations. It then learns video segmentation and dense captioning, decomposing videos into non-overlapping events with detailed, timestamp-aligned descriptions. We train TEMPURA on VER, our large-scale dataset of 500K videos annotated with temporally aligned event descriptions and structured reasoning steps. Experiments on video temporal grounding and highlight detection benchmarks show that TEMPURA substantially improves strong base VLMs across model families and scales, confirming that combining event-level reasoning with fine-grained temporal segmentation is an effective recipe for video temporal understanding.
Jen-Hao Cheng, Yi-Hao Peng, Huapeng Zhou +11
University of Washington · Carnegie Mellon University · National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University +1
Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in video temporal grounding with reinforcement learning for generating reasoning paths. However, existing models often produce superficial reasoning, which offers limited guidance for precise temporal localization. This limitation stems from (1) inefficient random exploration and (2) reward functions that focus solely on the answer correctness while ignoring reasoning quality. To address these issues, we propose TaRO (Temporal-Aware Reasoning Optimization), a framework that explicitly enhances the model's ability of thinking with time. First, we introduce a Constructive Reasoning Exploration that leverages pre-generated dense captions to construct reasoning paths grounded in explicit visual cues and timestamps, enabling efficient exploration of high-quality time-aware reasoning. Second, to evaluate reasoning quality, we design a Temporal-Sensitivity Reward. High-quality reasoning should be anchored to specific events and timestamps. If the event boundary under thinking is disrupted, such reasoning should become invalid, leading to a drop in the logit of the reasoning path. We utilize this drop as a critique of reasoning quality. Finally, TaRO follows a progressive curriculum, which starts by utilizing this reward to select better constructed reasoning paths, and evolves to a free exploration phase where the model autonomously generates effective reasoning. Experiments demonstrate that TaRO achieves state-of-the-art performance on VTG benchmarks. Code is available at https://github.com/oceanflowlab/TaRO.
Minghang Zheng, Zihao Yin, Yi Yang +2
Wangxuan Institute of Computer Technology, Peking University · Central Media Technology Institute, Huawei Technologies Ltd. · State Key Laboratory of General Artificial Intelligence, Peking University.
Spatio-temporal grounding in long videos requires precise temporal localization and robust object tracking conditioned on natural-language queries. While recent vision-language models (VLMs) show strong reasoning ability, directly applying frame-by-frame inference to long sequences is computationally expensive and unstable. We propose a practical pipeline that shifts from frame-level to second-level tracking and performs cross-second smoothing to preserve continuity while reducing sequence length. To improve reasoning supervision, we synthesize chain-of-thought style trajectories using advanced multimodal models for temporal localization and target selection, and replace generated spatio-temporal coordinates with ground-truth annotations to avoid noisy supervision. We further optimize the policy with reinforcement learning using a verifier based on t_IoU+mv_IoU. Experiments across multiple FPS settings show that our method achieves a strong trade-off between efficiency and localization quality.