Video Large Language Models (Video-LLMs) have achieved strong performance on many video understanding tasks, yet remain vulnerable to temporal hallucination in time-sensitive reasoning scenarios such as scene transition understanding and event ordering. Existing solutions either require costly retraining or introduce inefficient multi-pass inference and external supervision at test time. In this work, we show that temporal evidence is already encoded in Video-LLM hidden representations but is not fully exploited during standard inference. Motivated by this observation, we propose Single-Pass Orthogonal Decomposition (SPOD), a training-free framework that recovers suppressed temporal evidence through analytical hidden-state manipulation in a single forward pass. SPOD consists of two components: Frame Distinctiveness Analysis (FDA), which identifies salient frames from middle-layer hidden-state geometry, and Temporal Delta Subspace (TDS), which constructs orthogonal temporal and prior subspaces from weighted inter-frame hidden-state differences. By decomposing final hidden states into temporal, prior, and residual components and rescaling them independently, SPOD enhances dynamic information, suppresses static appearance bias, and preserves complementary information. Experiments on VidHalluc, EventHallusion, and VideoMMMU show that SPOD consistently outperforms strong inference-time baselines across temporal reasoning tasks and model architectures while retaining near-vanilla inference efficiency. These results suggest that improving temporal reasoning in Video-LLMs may depend not only on additional supervision, but also on recovering temporal evidence already present in their internal representations. Our code is available at https://github.com/VioAgnes/SPOD.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Illustration of temporal hallucination in Video-LLMs and our proposed SPOD.
Figure 2. Frame-level temporal distinctiveness across video samples. Layer-aggregated scores ϕi separate high- and low-saliency frames, with a mean high-to-low ratio of 2.81× .
Figure 3. Comparison of frame semantic coherence and temporal-boundary diversity between FDA-selected and uniformly sampled random frames.
Figure 4. Cumulative singular-value energy and effective-rank statistics of FDA-weighted temporal-difference matrices used for temporal subspace construction.
Figure 5. SPOD pipeline. (1) FDA identifies salient frames from middle-layer hidden-state geometry. (2) TDS constructs temporal and prior subspaces from weighted inter-frame differences and text hidden states. (3) Final hidden states are decomposed into temporal, prior, and residual components and rescaled to recover temporal evidence in a single forward pass.
Model
BQA
MCQ
STH
TSH
Overall
VideoLLaMA2
Vanilla
75.77
83.35
56.55
58.17
68.46
TCD
76.77
83.65
55.19
56.67
68.07
DINO-HEAL
75.79
83.35
56.32
57.67
68.28
TA-AE
79.09
84.07
65.14
61.67
72.49
CGD
76.03
82.76
59.14
59.02
69.24
Table 1. Results on VidHalluc benchmark. Bold indicates the best result per metric within each model group.
Variant
BQA
MCQ
STH
TSH
Vanilla
81.47
81.24
67.60
84.00
Ours
84.73
88.45
68.64
85.67
Table 2. Results on Qwen2.5-VL-72B.
Model
Entire
Mix
Misleading
Overall
VideoLLaMA2
Vanilla
38.60
62.18
46.08
48.95
TCD
42.98
75.65
54.90
57.84
DINO-HEAL
38.60
62.69
46.08
48.96
TA-AE
43.86
70.47
57.70
57.34
CGD
42.11
63.21
47.06
50.79
Table 3. Results on EventHallusion benchmark.
Model
Perc.
Comp.
Adapt.
Overall
VideoLLaMA2
Vanilla
60.34
46.00
27.67
44.67
TCD
60.00
43.00
36.33
46.44
TA-AE
61.67
43.00
35.00
46.56
Ours
68.67
48.34
28.67
48.56
Qwen2.5-VL
Table 4. Results on VideoMMMU benchmark.
Category
Variant
STH
TSH
Vanilla
60.55
59.17
FDA Ablation
FDA only
62.90
61.50
FDA + Attn
63.50
61.90
Random frames
61.50
60.30
TDS Ablation
w/o FDA weights
62.50
61.10
TDS + FDA weights
63.80
62.20
Table 5. Ablation study and sensitivity analysis.
Figure 6. Qualitative example on EventHallusion with Qwen2.5-VL-7B, where bold green text denotes correct descriptions with accurate temporal details, and bold red text denotes hallucinated descriptions.
Figure 7. Joint comparison of inference throughput and BLEU scores across different methods.
Gaoling School of Artificial Intelligence, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China · King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Saudi Arabia