Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 59 references

On the Consistency of Video Large Language Models in Temporal Comprehension

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Open-source video language models verify their own temporal predictions at near chance, and the authors' verification-based tuning improves both consistency and grounding.

desk verdict A genuinely useful consistency benchmark and tuning recipe for Video-LLMs, with a real caveat: the same LLM writes the test questions, trains the method, and scores the answers. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12951 v2 pith:G2QH3NLB submitted 2024-11-20 cs.CV

Minjoon Jung , Junbin Xiao , Byoung-Tak Zhang , Angela Yao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords videolargelanguagemodelstemporalgroundingpredictionconsistencyself-verificationVTuneCharades-CONActivityNet-CONmomentretrieval
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that current open-source Video-LLMs are not consistent in temporal comprehension: after a model predicts a video moment, its behavior under paraphrased queries, shifted video content, and direct verification questions often contradicts its own initial prediction. To make the claim measurable, the authors build Charades-CON and ActivityNet-CON from two standard grounding datasets, adding aligned, misaligned, and compositional queries, and define four probes: rephrased grounding, shifted grounding, holistic verification, and compositional verification. Evaluated on ten models, most open-source systems, including time-aware models built specifically for temporal grounding, show near chance-level holistic verification (about 50% relative consistency), while GPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 Flash are far more self-consistent. The paper then proposes event temporal verification tuning (VTune), which trains a model to confirm matching query-moment pairs and correct mismatched ones, and reports that VTune improves both grounding accuracy and consistency. If the finding is right, accuracy on standard temporal grounding benchmarks overstates how reliably open-source Video-LLMs understand video.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a verification-based evaluation protocol. Formally, grounding is written as $m=\mathrm{TempG}(v,q)$ and verification as $a=\mathrm{TempV}(v,q,m)\in\{\text{Yes},\text{No}\}$; the paper probes whether these two operations cohere. Four probes do the work: Rephrased Grounding measures the intersection-over-union overlap between predictions for a query and its paraphrases; Shifted Grounding moves the ground-truth moment to another temporal location and tests whether the model follows; Holistic Verification asks whether the whole query occurs in the model's own predicted moment, with misaligned queries as negative controls; Compositional Verification decomposes the query into subject, action, and relation and tests each component. All probe data are generated by GPT-4o-mini in aligned, misaligned, and compositional forms, and free-form answers are graded by GPT-4o-mini as Yes/No. The proposed fix, VTune, is the same verification viewpoint turned into training data: aligned queries paired with positive moments, misaligned queries paired with positive moments (requiring the model to identify and correct what changed), and aligned queries paired with negative moments (requiring relocation).

What would settle it

Re-run the full protocol with probe paraphrases written by humans or a second independent LLM and with answers graded by human raters instead of GPT-4o-mini; if open-source models' holistic verification consistency rises well above 50%, or if VTune's advantage over plain instruction tuning disappears, the central claim of near-chance self-verification and the reported gains would be artifacts of the GPT-4o-mini evaluation scaffold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a Video-LLM's ability to localize a moment and its ability to stand behind that localization come apart. On the paper's evaluation, models that pass the grounding bar (their predicted moment overlaps the ground truth by at least 0.5) still answer yes/no questions about whether the queried event is inside their own predicted moment at roughly chance level, often around 50% relative consistency. The same models also largely fail to re-ground the same visual content when it is shifted to a different temporal position, while they handle rephrased queries somewhat better; this pattern suggests reliance on language priors rather than visual comprehension. The paper reports that time-aware models such as TimeChat, VTimeLLM, and VTG-LLM improve grounding but not verification consistency, and that closed-source models are considerably more consistent. Its proposed repair, VTune, converts grounding into a verification task with aligned queries paired to positive moments and misaligned or displaced query-moment pairs, and the reported result is simultaneous improvement in both consistency and grounding on both datasets.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation's weakest point is that both the probe questions and the grading of model answers come from GPT-4o-mini, and consistency is measured only on predictions that already passed a 0.5 overlap accuracy filter, so if that assistant's wording or judging preferences favor some models over others, the near-chance scores and VTune gains could be partly artifacts of the evaluation scaffold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future temporal-grounding benchmarks should report consistency as a separate axis, because high grounding accuracy can coexist with chance-level self-verification.
  • Standard fixes such as chain-of-thought prompting, description prompting, and instruction tuning on target datasets should not be assumed to repair consistency; the paper finds their gains unstable and sometimes negative.
  • Training that treats grounding as verification (VTune) is a viable way to improve both consistency and grounding, with TimeChat-VT reaching state-of-the-art results on the Charades-STA and ActivityNet-Captions test sets.
  • Specializing a model for temporal grounding does not by itself make its temporal comprehension trustworthy, since the time-aware models still fail verification.
  • Closed-source models, though not designed for grounding, set the consistency bar that open-source Video-LLMs need to reach.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Consistency probes could serve as a pre-deployment sanity check for any Video-LLM asked to justify its own temporal answers in applications such as video search, highlight detection, or surveillance review, since a model that cannot confirm its own prediction cannot be trusted to explain it.
  • The near-chance verification scores may hide a systematic Yes/No bias rather than pure randomness; a balanced-probe audit that separates biased models from genuinely uncertain ones would make the failure mode precise.
  • VTune's recipe of confirming unchanged queries, correcting altered ones, and relocating displaced ones is not specific to video and could transfer to image grounding or referring-expression tasks, although the paper only tests temporal grounding.
  • If language-prior reliance is the cause of these inconsistencies, then models trained with VTune should show less performance drop when visual content is degraded, a testable prediction the paper does not run.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies the consistency of Video-LLMs in temporal grounding by introducing two evaluation sets, Charades-CON and ActivityNet-CON, and four probes: rephrased grounding, shifted grounding, holistic verification, and compositional verification. The authors evaluate ten open- and closed-source models and report that open-source Video-LLMs often achieve near chance-level verification consistency while closed-source models are more consistent. They further analyze prompting and instruction tuning, find these approaches unstable or ineffective for consistency, and propose event temporal verification tuning (VTune), which reformulates temporal grounding as a verification task. VTune is reported to improve both grounding and consistency over instruction-tuning baselines on Charades-STA and ActivityNet-Captions.

Significance. If the findings hold, the paper provides a useful diagnostic benchmark and a practical training recipe for improving temporal consistency in Video-LLMs. The study's strengths are its broad model coverage, including time-aware models, the human validation of generated query quality, the clear presentation of absolute and relative consistency scores, and the open-sourced data and code. The central negative result---that many open-source Video-LLMs cannot reliably confirm their own moment predictions---would be an important community-wide signal. However, the headline numbers currently rest on a single GPT-4o-mini generator-judge pipeline, a consistency metric computed only on IoU-filtered correct predictions, and training-data comparisons that are not matched in scale. These issues constrain the external validity of the near-chance and VTune claims until addressed.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, Table 1] The claim that open-source models perform "near chance-level" in holistic verification is not statistically supported. Relative consistency is computed only for predictions with IoU≥0.5, and for low-recall models this leaves a small subset; for example, Video-ChatGPT on Charades-CON has Ground=14.4 and H-Verify relative=44.8, corresponding to roughly 100 samples, which gives a standard error of about 5 percentage points and makes 44.8% statistically indistinguishable from 50%. No confidence intervals, multiple runs, or significance tests are reported for any of the scores in Tables 1–4. Please add confidence intervals or error bars and report the sample sizes behind each relative score.
  2. [§3.1, §3.3, Appendix D] The evaluation pipeline is a single-LLM loop: GPT-4o-mini generates the aligned/misaligned/compositional test queries (§3.1), generates VTune's verification queries and corrections (Appendix D, Figure 11), and judges whether a model's verification answer matches the expected answer (§3.3, Figure 13). The human study in §3.1 validates only the quality of the generated sentences, not the judge's decisions. This creates a risk that the near-chance scores for open-source models and the VTune gains reflect familiarity with GPT-4o-mini's phrasing and judged response style rather than genuine temporal consistency. Please provide a human evaluation of the judge's decisions, report agreement with an alternative judge model, and/or evaluate on an independently curated test set.
  3. [§5.3, Tables 2 and 12] The comparison between instruction tuning (IT) and VTune is confounded by training-data scale. According to Table 12, VTune uses 99,244 queries on Charades-STA versus 12,408 for IT, and 205,510 versus 37,330 on ActivityNet-Captions. The gains in Table 2 could therefore be due to more training data rather than to the verification objective. Please include an IT baseline trained on the same total number of queries (for example, by adding additional grounding queries), or provide a VTune ablation matched to IT's data size, to isolate the effect of event temporal verification.
  4. [Appendix B.3, Table 1] For VTG-LLM, the verification scores appear to mix consistency with instruction-following ability. Appendix B.3 states that VTG-LLM "frequently generates timestamps as answers, even when asked for verification probes," and such outputs are presumably scored as inconsistent. The unusually low relative H-Verify scores (23.1 on Charades-CON and 10.9 on ActivityNet-CON in Table 1) may therefore reflect an instruction-following failure rather than a temporal-consistency failure. Please report the frequency of invalid responses separately and analyze consistency on the subset of valid responses.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 10] The S-Ground (0.7) column contains entries that look like typos; for example, Video-LLaMA on Charades-CON shows 8.3, which is higher than the corresponding IoU=0.5 value of 5.3. Please verify all entries in this table.
  2. [§3.1, Table 14] The word-order modification rule is abbreviated as "WO" in the main text but as "OC" in Table 14; please harmonize the abbreviations.
  3. [Appendix B.2, Table 9] The frame-count selection for GPT-4o is performed on 200-video development subsets; please clarify whether a similar selection was performed for Gemini and whether the chosen frame counts are the ones listed in Table 1.
  4. [§5.3, Table 3] The statement that TimeChat achieves "state-of-the-art results on both datasets" is based on a limited set of baselines (BM-DETR, Mr.BLIP, HawkEye, VTG-LLM, Video-LLaMA, and TimeChat); consider wording this as "best among compared methods" or adding more recent state-of-the-art results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: GPT-4o-mini generator-judge overlap is an external-validity concern, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical rather than formal. It constructs consistency probes (R-Ground, S-Ground, H-Verify, C-Verify), measures model responses on newly curated evaluation sets, and proposes VTune as an instruction-tuning method. No equation defines a predicted quantity in terms of the fitted method's parameters, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The use of GPT-4o-mini both to generate test queries (§3.1) and verification-training queries (Appendix D) and to judge open-ended verification answers (§3.3, Figure 13) is a legitimate threat to external validity: VTune models could be adapting to the generator's distribution, and open-source models' near-chance scores could be influenced by judge behavior. However, this is a measurement confound rather than a circular reduction: the consistency scores are not logically entailed by the query-generation procedure, and the central grounding claims are independently corroborated on the original Charades-STA and ActivityNet-Captions test sets in Table 3. Self-citations ([11], [12], [37]) appear in related-work and explanatory contexts and are not load-bearing; [37] is cited alongside [28] and [38] for the language-prior hypothesis, and the VTune comparison is additionally validated against external task-specific models. Therefore, no step in the paper reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the validity of LLM-generated probe data and LLM-based answer judging, on hand-set evaluation thresholds, and on the assumption that shifted moments are faithful tests of visual grounding. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced; the only invented objects are the evaluation protocol and the VTune training objective, which are functions of the data rather than independent entities.

free parameters (4)
  • IoU correctness threshold = 0.5 (with 0.7 reported in appendix)
    Consistency scores are computed only for predictions with temporal IoU at least 0.5 against ground truth, which determines which samples enter the relative consistency numerator and denominator. The choice is hand-set and affects all reported consistency numbers (Section 3.3, Table 10).
  • Shift overlap cap = about 20% average overlap
    Shifted moments are generated so that they overlap the original moment by only about 20% on average; the amount of overlap controls how difficult the shifted-grounding probe is and is a hand-set design choice (Section 3.2).
  • Moment length filters = 5 words, 5 seconds, 70% of video length
    Queries shorter than 5 words, moments shorter than 5 seconds, and moments longer than 70% of the video are excluded during dataset construction; these exclusions shape both Charades-CON and ActivityNet-CON and the resulting consistency statistics (Section 3.1).
  • GPT-4o frame count = 10 frames
    The number of frames fed to GPT-4o was selected by scanning 10, 32, and 64 on 100-video subsets (Table 9), and the chosen setting of 10 frames is used for all GPT-4o grounding and consistency results (Appendix B.2).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption GPT-4o-mini generated aligned, misaligned, and compositional queries are valid consistency probes.
    The entire evaluation rests on these generated sentences correctly preserving or altering the meaning of the original query. A human study on 700 pairs supports this but does not verify the full set (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption GPT-4o-mini can reliably judge whether a model's free-form answer agrees with the expected Yes or No response.
    Model answers are scored by prompting GPT-4o-mini instead of exact string matching (Section 3.3, Appendix F); judge errors would systematically bias all consistency scores.
  • domain assumption Shifting a ground-truth moment to a new temporal location preserves the query-moment correspondence needed to test visual grounding.
    The shifted-grounding probe assumes the shifted video segment still contains the event the query describes, so a consistent model should move its prediction with the content; if the shift creates a mislabeled or ambiguous segment, the probe measures something else (Section 3.2).
  • ad hoc to paper IoU at least 0.5 is a sufficient criterion for a correct grounding for the purpose of measuring consistency.
    The paper argues that evaluating consistency on incorrect predictions is less meaningful, but the threshold is arbitrary and changes the composition of the subset on which relative consistency is computed (Section 3.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Consistency of Video Large Language Models in Temporal Comprehension." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G2QH3NLB

@misc{pith2026241112951,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Consistency of Video Large Language Models in Temporal Comprehension},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G2QH3NLB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12951}
}
read the original abstract

Video large language models (Video-LLMs) can temporally ground language queries and retrieve video moments. Yet, such temporal comprehension capabilities are neither well-studied nor understood. So we conduct a study on prediction consistency -- a key indicator for robustness and trustworthiness of temporal grounding. After the model identifies an initial moment within the video content, we apply a series of probes to check if the model's responses align with this initial grounding as an indicator of reliable comprehension. Our results reveal that current Video-LLMs are sensitive to variations in video contents, language queries, and task settings, unveiling severe deficiencies in maintaining consistency. We further explore common prompting and instruction-tuning methods as potential solutions, but find that their improvements are often unstable. To that end, we propose event temporal verification tuning that explicitly accounts for consistency, and demonstrate significant improvements for both grounding and consistency. Our data and code are open-sourced at https://github.com/minjoong507/Consistency-of-Video-LLM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12951 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: An example of inconsistent behavior of Video￾LLMs, where the answer contradicts the initial temporal prediction in self-verification. Bottom: We reveal that most Video-LLMs struggle to reliably confirm their initial moment predictions, achiev￾ing a near chance-level consistency (50%). about their capabilities in faithful temporal reasoning. Consistency is a key indicator of robustness and trustwor￾thiness, so w… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of our consistency evaluation process. For each query-moment pair in the video, we shift the ground-truth moment to a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of the model responses for verification probes. We first ask the model to predict the timestamp of the given sentence, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Consistency evaluation of Video-LLMs using different prompting methods. The Standard indicates the original performance. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of instruction tuning methods. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Responses of the instruction-tuned models. While IT fails [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Consistency evaluation results of Video-ChatGPT and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Chain-of-Thought prompts for temporal grounding and the probes. Since temporal grounding, rephrased grounding, and shifted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The responses of Video-ChatGPT with Description [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The prompt to generate verification questions for VTune. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The prompt for generating aligned, misaligned, and compositional queries. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The prompt to assess the correctness of the model’s answer for verification probes. Specifically, we ask GPT-4o-mini to assess [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gpt-4 technical report

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023. 2, 5

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    The surprising effectiveness of multimodal large language models for video moment retrieval

    Meinardus Boris, Batra Anil, Rohrbach Anna, and Rohrbach Marcus. The surprising effectiveness of multimodal large language models for video moment retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18113, 2024. 8

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    End- to-end object detection with transformers

    Nicolas Carion, Francisco Massa, Gabriel Synnaeve, Nicolas Usunier, Alexander Kirillov, and Sergey Zagoruyko. End- to-end object detection with transformers. In European con- ference on computer vision, pages 213–229. Springer, 2020. 2

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Videollama 2: Advancing spatial- temporal modeling and audio understanding in video-llms

    Zesen Cheng, Sicong Leng, Hang Zhang, Yifei Xin, Xin Li, Guanzheng Chen, Yongxin Zhu, Wenqi Zhang, Ziyang Luo, Deli Zhao, et al. Videollama 2: Advancing spatial- temporal modeling and audio understanding in video-llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07476, 2024. 1, 2, 5, 11

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Instructblip: Towards general-purpose vision- language models with instruction tuning, 2023

    Wenliang Dai, Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Anthony Meng Huat Tiong, Junqi Zhao, Weisheng Wang, Boyang Li, Pascale Fung, and Steven Hoi. Instructblip: Towards general-purpose vision- language models with instruction tuning, 2023. 12

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Measuring and improving consistency in pretrained language models

    Yanai Elazar, Nora Kassner, Shauli Ravfogel, Abhilasha Ravichander, Eduard Hovy, Hinrich Schütze, and Yoav Gold- berg. Measuring and improving consistency in pretrained language models. Transactions of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics, 9:1012–1031, 2021. 2

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Tall: Temporal activity localization via language query

    Jiyang Gao, Chen Sun, Zhenheng Yang, and Ram Nevatia. Tall: Temporal activity localization via language query. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on com- puter vision, pages 5267–5275, 2017. 1, 2

    2017

  8. [8]

    Vtg-llm: Integrating timestamp knowl- edge into video llms for enhanced video temporal grounding

    Yongxin Guo, Jingyu Liu, Mingda Li, Xiaoying Tang, Xi Chen, and Bo Zhao. Vtg-llm: Integrating timestamp knowl- edge into video llms for enhanced video temporal grounding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13382, 2024. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11

    arXiv 2024

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Vtimellm: Empower llm to grasp video moments

    Bin Huang, Xin Wang, Hong Chen, Zihan Song, and Wenwu Zhu. Vtimellm: Empower llm to grasp video moments. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 14271–14280, 2024. 2, 5, 7, 11

    2024

  2. [10]

    Lita: Language instructed temporal-localization assistant

    De-An Huang, Shijia Liao, Subhashree Radhakrishnan, Hongxu Yin, Pavlo Molchanov, Zhiding Yu, and Jan Kautz. Lita: Language instructed temporal-localization assistant. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.19046, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Modal-specific pseudo query genera- tion for video corpus moment retrieval

    Minjoon Jung, SeongHo Choi, JooChan Kim, Jin-Hwa Kim, and Byoung-Tak Zhang. Modal-specific pseudo query genera- tion for video corpus moment retrieval. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7769–7781, 2022. 2

    2022

  4. [12]

    Background-aware moment detection for video moment retrieval

    Minjoon Jung, Youwon Jang, Seongho Choi, Joochan Kim, Jin-Hwa Kim, and Byoung-Tak Zhang. Background-aware moment detection for video moment retrieval. In Proceedings of the Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 8575–8585, 2025. 2, 8

    2025

  5. [13]

    Language repository for long video understanding

    Kumara Kahatapitiya, Kanchana Ranasinghe, Jongwoo Park, and Michael S Ryoo. Language repository for long video understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14622, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Dense-captioning events in videos

    Ranjay Krishna, Kenji Hata, Frederic Ren, Li Fei-Fei, and Juan Carlos Niebles. Dense-captioning events in videos. In International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2017. 1, 2

    2017

  7. [15]

    Detecting mo- ments and highlights in videos via natural language queries

    Jie Lei, Tamara L Berg, and Mohit Bansal. Detecting mo- ments and highlights in videos via natural language queries. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 34: 11846–11858, 2021. 2

    2021

  8. [16]

    Videochat: Chat-centric video understanding

    KunChang Li, Yinan He, Yi Wang, Yizhuo Li, Wenhai Wang, Ping Luo, Yali Wang, Limin Wang, and Yu Qiao. Videochat: Chat-centric video understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06355, 2023. 1, 11

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Mvbench: A comprehensive multi-modal video understand- ing benchmark

    Kunchang Li, Yali Wang, Yinan He, Yizhuo Li, Yi Wang, Yi Liu, Zun Wang, Jilan Xu, Guo Chen, Ping Luo, et al. Mvbench: A comprehensive multi-modal video understand- ing benchmark. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 22195–...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Vitatecs: A diagnostic dataset for temporal concept understanding of video-language models

    Shicheng Li, Lei Li, Shuhuai Ren, Yuanxin Liu, Yi Liu, Run- dong Gao, Xu Sun, and Lu Hou. Vitatecs: A diagnostic dataset for temporal concept understanding of video-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17404, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Benchmarking and improving generator-validator consistency of language models

    Xiang Lisa Li, Vaishnavi Shrivastava, Siyan Li, Tatsunori Hashimoto, and Percy Liang. Benchmarking and improving generator-validator consistency of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01846, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Video-llava: Learning united visual represen- tation by alignment before projection

    Bin Lin, Bin Zhu, Yang Ye, Munan Ning, Peng Jin, and Li Yuan. Video-llava: Learning united visual represen- tation by alignment before projection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10122, 2023. 1, 2, 5, 11

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Visual instruction tuning, 2023

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning, 2023. 11

    2023

  14. [22]

    Tempcom- pass: Do video llms really understand videos? arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.00476, 2024

    Yuanxin Liu, Shicheng Li, Yi Liu, Yuxiang Wang, Shuhuai Ren, Lei Li, Sishuo Chen, Xu Sun, and Lu Hou. Tempcom- pass: Do video llms really understand videos? arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.00476, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Valley: Video assistant with large language model enhanced ability

    Ruipu Luo, Ziwang Zhao, Min Yang, Junwei Dong, Da Li, Pengcheng Lu, Tao Wang, Linmei Hu, Minghui Qiu, and Zhongyu Wei. Valley: Video assistant with large language model enhanced ability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07207,

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Video-chatgpt: Towards detailed video understanding via large vision and language models

    Muhammad Maaz, Hanoona Rasheed, Salman Khan, and Fa- had Shahbaz Khan. Video-chatgpt: Towards detailed video understanding via large vision and language models. In Pro- 9 ceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2024), 2024. 1, 2, 5, 11

    2024

  17. [25]

    Query-dependent video representation for moment retrieval and highlight detection

    WonJun Moon, Sangeek Hyun, SangUk Park, Dongchan Park, and Jae-Pil Heo. Query-dependent video representation for moment retrieval and highlight detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 23023–23033, 2023. 2

    2023

  18. [26]

    Local-global video-text interactions for temporal grounding

    Jonghwan Mun, Minsu Cho, and Bohyung Han. Local-global video-text interactions for temporal grounding. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10810–10819, 2020. 2

    2020

  19. [27]

    Video-bench: A comprehen- sive benchmark and toolkit for evaluating video-based large language models

    Munan Ning, Bin Zhu, Yujia Xie, Bin Lin, Jiaxi Cui, Lu Yuan, Dongdong Chen, and Li Yuan. Video-bench: A comprehen- sive benchmark and toolkit for evaluating video-based large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16103, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Uncovering hidden challenges in query-based video moment retrieval

    Mayu Otani, Yuta Nakashima, Esa Rahtu, and Janne Heikkilä. Uncovering hidden challenges in query-based video moment retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.00325, 2020. 2, 6

    2009 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Momentor: Advancing video large language model with fine-grained tem- poral reasoning

    Long Qian, Juncheng Li, Yu Wu, Yaobo Ye, Hao Fei, Tat- Seng Chua, Yueting Zhuang, and Siliang Tang. Momentor: Advancing video large language model with fine-grained tem- poral reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11435, 2024. 1, 2, 7

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal under- standing across millions of tokens of context

    Machel Reid, Nikolay Savinov, Denis Teplyashin, Dmitry Lepikhin, Timothy Lillicrap, Jean-baptiste Alayrac, Radu Soricut, Angeliki Lazaridou, Orhan Firat, Julian Schrit- twieser, et al. Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal under- standing across millions of tokens of context. arXiv...

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Timechat: A time-sensitive multimodal large lan- guage model for long video understanding

    Shuhuai Ren, Linli Yao, Shicheng Li, Xu Sun, and Lu Hou. Timechat: A time-sensitive multimodal large lan- guage model for long video understanding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 14313–14323, 2024. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 14

    2024

  24. [32]

    Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in lan- guage models

    Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in lan- guage models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Hawkeye: Training video- text llms for grounding text in videos

    Yueqian Wang, Xiaojun Meng, Jianxin Liang, Yuxuan Wang, Qun Liu, and Dongyan Zhao. Hawkeye: Training video- text llms for grounding text in videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10228, 2024. 1, 2, 8

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Negative sample matters: A renaissance of metric learning for temporal grounding

    Zhenzhi Wang, Limin Wang, Tao Wu, Tianhao Li, and Gang- shan Wu. Negative sample matters: A renaissance of metric learning for temporal grounding. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 2613–2623, 2022. 2

    2022

  27. [35]

    Chain-of- thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of- thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824– 24837, 2022. 7

    2022

  28. [36]

    Videoqa in the era of llms: An empirical study

    Junbin Xiao, Nanxin Huang, Hangyu Qin, Dongyang Li, Yicong Li, Fengbin Zhu, Zhulin Tao, Jianxing Yu, Liang Lin, Tat-Seng Chua, and Angela Yao. Videoqa in the era of llms: An empirical study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04223, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Can i trust your answer? visually grounded video question answering

    Junbin Xiao, Angela Yao, Yicong Li, and Tat-Seng Chua. Can i trust your answer? visually grounded video question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13204– 13214, 2024. 1, 2, 6

    2024

  30. [38]

    A closer look at temporal sentence ground- ing in videos: Dataset and metric

    Yitian Yuan, Xiaohan Lan, Xin Wang, Long Chen, Zhi Wang, and Wenwu Zhu. A closer look at temporal sentence ground- ing in videos: Dataset and metric. In Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on human-centric multimedia analysis, pages 13–21, 2021. 2, 3, 6

    2021

  31. [39]

    Sc-tune: Unleashing self-consistent referential compre- hension in large vision language models

    Tongtian Yue, Jie Cheng, Longteng Guo, Xingyuan Dai, Zi- jia Zhao, Xingjian He, Gang Xiong, Yisheng Lv, and Jing Liu. Sc-tune: Unleashing self-consistent referential compre- hension in large vision language models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision a...

    2024

  32. [40]

    Span-based localizing network for natural language video localization

    Hao Zhang, Aixin Sun, Wei Jing, and Joey Tianyi Zhou. Span-based localizing network for natural language video localization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.13931, 2020. 2

    2004 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Video-llama: An instruction-tuned audio-visual language model for video un- derstanding

    Hang Zhang, Xin Li, and Lidong Bing. Video-llama: An instruction-tuned audio-visual language model for video un- derstanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02858, 2023. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Learning 2d temporal adjacent networks for moment local- ization with natural language

    Songyang Zhang, Houwen Peng, Jianlong Fu, and Jiebo Luo. Learning 2d temporal adjacent networks for moment local- ization with natural language. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages 12870–12877,

  35. [43]

    Unveiling the tapestry of con- sistency in large vision-language models

    Yuan Zhang, Fei Xiao, Tao Huang, Chun-Kai Fan, Hongyuan Dong, Jiawen Li, Jiacong Wang, Kuan Cheng, Shanghang Zhang, and Haoyuan Guo. Unveiling the tapestry of con- sistency in large vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14156, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Prompt consis- tency for zero-shot task generalization

    Chunting Zhou, Junxian He, Xuezhe Ma, Taylor Berg- Kirkpatrick, and Graham Neubig. Prompt consis- tency for zero-shot task generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.00049, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Towards auto- matic learning of procedures from web instructional videos

    Luowei Zhou, Chenliang Xu, and Jason Corso. Towards auto- matic learning of procedures from web instructional videos. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence, 2018. 1

    2018

  38. [46]

    Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision-language understanding with advanced large language models

    Deyao Zhu, Jun Chen, Xiaoqian Shen, Xiang Li, and Mo- hamed Elhoseiny. Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision-language understanding with advanced large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10592, 2023. 11 10 In this file, we provide additional details as follows: A. Details of Eva...

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    It shows a remarkable zero-shot audio understanding capability and also generates responses to the visual and audio information presented in the videos

    Video-LLaMA exhibits two branches: Vision-Language and Audio-Language in its modeling and utilizes cross- modal training from both the frozen pre-trained visual and audio encoder. It shows a remarkable zero-shot audio understanding capability and also generates responses to th...

  40. [48]

    To do this, Video- LLaV A collects both image and video-text datasets and incorporates them in its instruction tuning

    Video-LLaV Aenables an LLM to perform visual rea- soning capabilities, and it leads to comprehending both images and videos simultaneously. To do this, Video- LLaV A collects both image and video-text datasets and incorporates them in its instruction tuning. Figure 7. Consiste...

  41. [49]

    It introduces a new dataset for video instruction tuning, containing 100,000 high-quality video-instruction pairs

    Video-ChatGPT designs spatiotemporal video modeling and constructs video instruction tuning upon LLaV A [21]. It introduces a new dataset for video instruction tuning, containing 100,000 high-quality video-instruction pairs. Video-ChatGPT outperforms previous Video-LLMs in Zer...

  42. [50]

    When does the event qhappen in the video? Please only return its start time and end time

  43. [51]

    The format should be: ’start time - end seconds’

    Please find the visual contents in the video described by a given event, determining its starting. The format should be: ’start time - end seconds’. Now I will give you the event:q. Please only return its start time and end time

  44. [52]

    The output format should be: ’start - end seconds’

    Please answer when the event qoccurs in the video. The output format should be: ’start - end seconds’. Please return its start time and end time." TimeChat Please find the visual event described by a sentence in the video, determining its starting and ending times. The format ...

  45. [53]

    Specifically, they aim to align vision and text in the first stage and then generate captions from various image-text pairs

    VideoChat2 design a progressive multimodal training. Specifically, they aim to align vision and text in the first stage and then generate captions from various image-text pairs. Finally, they conduct instruction tuning to better align responses with human instructions. VideoCh...

  46. [54]

    They seamlessly integrate both visual and audio modalities in videos and propose STC connector to understand spatiotemporal video informa- tion

    Video-LLaMA2 is one of the state-of-the-art Video- LLMs, demonstrating superior performances on video question-answering tasks. They seamlessly integrate both visual and audio modalities in videos and propose STC connector to understand spatiotemporal video informa- tion

  47. [55]

    TimeChat is specifically developed to accurately local- ize and understand specific video moments from long videos. TimeChat designs two key architectural: (1) A time-aware frame encoder that explicitly encodes video frames along with timestamps, (2) A sliding video Q- Former ...

  48. [56]

    VTimeLLM proposes a three-stage temporal-aware method, including image-text training and understanding events within the video, enabling more precise video tem- poral understanding. VTimeLLM devises two types of QA dialogue templates, including single-turn and multi- turn, to ...

  49. [57]

    I’m unable to find timestamps in the video

    VTG-LLM utilizes specific modules to improve tem- poral representations in Video-LLM. While previous Video-LLMs suffer quantization errors by using special time tokens, VTG-LLM use absolute-time tokens (e.g., <TIME_ZERO>, <TIME_ONE>) to resolve this and han- dle videos more th...

  50. [58]

    Experiments on Charades-CON with TimeChat

    We use the prompt in Figure 12 to generate aligned, mis- Figure 10. Experiments on Charades-CON with TimeChat. (A): Performance evaluation across different ratios of event and temporal verification queries. The total queries are fixed at 12k, matching the # of grounding querie...

  51. [59]

    16 Figure 11

    We use the prompt in Figure 13 to evaluate the model’s answer for our probes. 16 Figure 11. The prompt to generate verification questions for VTune. 17 Figure 12. The prompt for generating aligned, misaligned, and compositional queries. 18 Figure 13. The prompt to assess the c...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.