Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

FlashVTG: Feature Layering and Adaptive Score Handling Network for Video Temporal Grounding

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read FlashVTG claims that replacing the DETR decoder with a temporal feature pyramid and context-aware score refinement raises moment retrieval and highlight detection to state-of-the-art on multiple benchmarks, with short-moment mAP reaching…

desk verdict A genuinely new architecture with strong ablations, but the headline score loss is undefined as written and the abstract overstates backbone-matched gains. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13441 v1 pith:OKTCMYB5 submitted 2024-12-18 cs.CV cs.AIcs.CL

Zhuo Cao , Bingqing Zhang , Heming Du , Xin Yu , Xue Li , Sen Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.CL
keywords videotemporalgroundingmomentretrievalhighlightdetectionshortfeaturepyramidadaptivescorerefinementQVHighlightstransformerdecoder
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

FlashVTG is an architecture for video temporal grounding: given an untrimmed video and a natural-language query, it finds the moments that match the query and scores clips as highlights. The paper argues that DETR-style models fail on short moments because they rely on a small fixed set of decoder queries, and because they rank predictions from each predicted moment in isolation. To fix both, FlashVTG builds a multi-scale temporal feature pyramid with strided convolutions and reranks moments using neighboring and cross-scale context. On QVHighlights the authors report state-of-the-art moment retrieval and highlight detection, with short-moment mAP about 125% of the previous best, and claim these gains come without added training burden.

What carries the argument

Temporal Feature Layering (TFL) is a feature pyramid built by applying 1D convolutions with stride 2 to the fused video-text features, producing scales $F_k \in \mathbb{R}^{L_v/2^{k-1} \times d}$ for $k=1,\dots,K$; a shared moment-prediction head outputs start/end boundaries at every scale, replacing the decoder's sparse learned queries. Adaptive Score Refinement (ASR) computes intra-scale confidence scores $c_{intra}$ from a per-scale score head and an inter-scale score $c_{inter}$ from a second head over the concatenated pyramid, then combines them as $c_{final} = x\,c_{intra} + (1-x)\,c_{inter}$ with a learnable weight $x$. The Clip-Aware Score Loss transfers saliency labels from highlight detection into moment retrieval by min-max normalizing both confidence and saliency scores and penalizing their mean squared error, giving fine-grained clip-level supervision that mainly helps short moments.

What would settle it

Running FlashVTG on QVHighlights with SlowFast+CLIP features and ablating the ASR module gives a concrete test: the paper predicts validation MR mAP falls from 52.84 to 52.47 without ASR and to 46.84 without both modules, so an external implementation should reproduce that gap. If a prior DETR-based method, under identical features, training schedule, and NMS settings, matches or exceeds 47.59 test mAP, the decoder-free claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a decoder-free design can outperform query-based DETR models on both moment retrieval and highlight detection, and that the clearest win is on short moments under ten seconds. Concretely, on QVHighlights the authors report a test mAP of 47.59 with the standard SlowFast+CLIP features and 52.00 when features come from InternVideo2, and they state that the same-backbone gain is 1.4% mAP. Their ablation attributes the gain to the Temporal Feature Layering module, which raises validation MR mAP from 46.84 to 52.47 by itself, and to the Adaptive Score Refinement module, which adds a further gain to 52.84. They also report short-moment retrieval mAP of 15.73 versus 12.62 for the previous best, and consistent improvements on TACoS, Charades-STA, TVSum, and YouTube-HL.

Load-bearing premise

The reported advantage over prior methods is only meaningful when all compared models use the same video and text features; the largest headline numbers use InternVideo2 features that most baselines do not have.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Short moments (under about 10 seconds) become retrievable without increasing the number of decoder queries, so the cost of finer localization does not grow with the number of candidates.
  • Confidence scores are no longer derived from a single isolated prediction; ranking improves because predictions are compared with their temporal neighbors and across scales, which should directly improve Recall@1.
  • Moment retrieval and highlight detection share the same clip-level supervision, so improvements in one task can propagate to the other within one training run.
  • The architecture composes with stronger video features: using InternVideo2 gives a further large jump on QVHighlights, suggesting the modules are complementary to feature quality.
  • Because the decoder is removed, the model trains with the same reported budget (about 1.5 hours on one RTX 4090 for QVHighlights), so the gains are not bought with longer training.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the abstract's 5.8% MR and 3.3% HD figures compare FlashVTG with InternVideo2 features against baselines on weaker SlowFast+CLIP features; Section 4.4 states the matched-feature gain is 1.4% mAP, so the standalone architectural benefit is closer to the smaller number.
  • Editorial inference: the TFL module is a temporal analogue of image feature pyramids, but the paper does not ablate against alternative multi-scale temporal designs such as dilated convolutions or different stride choices, so the exact strided-convolution recipe is not isolated.
  • Editorial inference: the Clip-Aware Score Loss depends on having clip-level saliency labels; on datasets without such labels its benefit would likely shrink, and a clean test would be to run the method on MR-only data and measure the drop.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. FlashVTG proposes a Temporal Feature Layering (TFL) module that replaces DETR-style decoders with a multi-scale convolutional pyramid, and an Adaptive Score Refinement (ASR) module that combines intra-scale and inter-scale confidence scores. The paper also introduces a Clip-Aware Score Loss that uses highlight-detection saliency labels to supervise moment-retrieval confidence scores. Experiments on QVHighlights, TACoS, Charades-STA, TVSum, and YouTube-HL report state-of-the-art or competitive results in moment retrieval and highlight detection, with the largest gains obtained when the model is combined with an InternVideo2 backbone. The paper claims a 5.8% MR mAP and 3.3% HD mAP improvement on QVHighlights, and 125% of previous SOTA in short-moment retrieval mAP, alongside a smaller same-backbone gain of 1.4% MR mAP.

Significance. If the central claims survive scrutiny, the paper would make a useful contribution: the TFL module is a simple and plausible alternative to learned decoder queries, and the ASR module addresses a real ranking problem. The same-backbone gains on QVHighlights (1.4% MR mAP), Charades-STA, and TACoS are nontrivial, and the authors provide code, which aids reproducibility. However, the paper currently overstates the architectural benefit by advertising gains that come from a stronger backbone, and the main new training objective, the Clip-Aware Score Loss, is not well-defined as written. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's central empirical claim, so the manuscript needs substantive revision before the results can be accepted as reported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.6, Eq. (10); §3.5, Eqs. (6)–(9)] The Clip-Aware Score Loss as defined cannot be computed. From Eq. (6), each c_k has length L_v / 2^{k-1}, so Eq. (7) gives c_intra of total length sum_{k=1}^K L_v / 2^{k-1} ≈ 2L_v. Eq. (8) states that c_inter matches the dimensions of the intra-scale output, and Eq. (9) therefore produces c_final of length ≈ 2L_v. The target s_gt is the clip-level saliency sequence of length L_v. Eq. (10) then takes an MSE between normalized c_final and normalized s_gt with no specified alignment, pooling, upsampling, or indexing from pyramid positions to video clips. The manuscript provides no supplementary material, and Table 8 does not ablate this loss. Consequently, the fine-grained supervision highlighted in the introduction and abstract is not actually defined, and the reported gains cannot be attributed to a reproducible training objective. The authors must specify how c_final is mapped to per-clip saliency labels, or revise the loss definition, and should report an ablation of the loss.
  2. [Abstract; §4.4; Tables 1 and 4] The headline improvements of 5.8% MR mAP and 3.3% HD mAP on QVHighlights are obtained with the InternVideo2 backbone, not with the same backbone as the prior SOTA. Table 1 shows the same-backbone gain is 1.4% MR mAP relative to R2-Tuning, and Table 4 shows the same-backbone HD gain is smaller (41.07 vs. 40.75 for R2-Tuning). The abstract states these boosts without disclosing the backbone mismatch, and §4.4 similarly says 'a 5.8% increase in mAP on the test set' before separately noting the same-backbone improvement. This presentation overstates the contribution of the proposed architecture. The short-moment claim of 125% of previous SOTA (Table 7) is also confounded by backbone choice, since R2-Tuning there uses only CLIP features while FlashVTG uses SlowFast+CLIP. The authors should either consistently report backbone-matched comparisons in the abstract and main claims, or clearly label which numbers use the stronger backbone.
  3. [§3.5 and Table 8] The ablation study does not isolate the contribution of the ASR module as cleanly as the text suggests. Table 8 adds TFL and then ASR together with the Clip-Aware Score Loss, but the text in §4.5 says the saliency label from HD is used as a supervision signal and that this 'indirectly boosted HD performance.' Since the loss term is undefined as written (see the first major comment), the 0.37 MR mAP and 0.52 HD mAP differences between the TFL-only and TFL+ASR rows cannot be interpreted as purely due to score refinement. A complete ablation should show TFL alone, TFL+ASR without the clip-aware loss, and TFL+ASR with the loss, and should clarify what the loss actually computes.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§1] The sentence 'performance improvements of 2.7%, 2.2%, and 11.9% respectively in MR' does not specify the comparison baseline or the backbone setting; please make the comparison explicit.
  2. [§4.1 vs. Abstract] The abstract says 'four widely adopted datasets' but §4.1 lists and the experiments evaluate five datasets (QVHighlights, TACoS, Charades-STA, TVSum, YouTube-HL); this should be corrected.
  3. [Table 7 vs. Table 1] The R2-Tuning validation mAP is reported as 47.86 in Table 7 but 47.59 in Table 1; these numbers should be reconciled.
  4. [§4.3] The implementation details state 'K = 4, 5 layers in temporal feature layering'; this is ambiguous and should say whether K=4 or K=5 is used, and whether different datasets use different values.
  5. [§3.4, Eq. (5)] The notation in Eq. (5), with transposes applied to the output of a 1D convolution, is confusing; a clearer statement of how Conv1D acts on the feature dimension would improve readability.
  6. [References] The related work and citations are not always consistent in formatting (e.g., 'R2-Tunning' vs. 'R2-Tuning'); please unify spelling and reference style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FlashVTG is an empirical supervised method benchmarked on external datasets; no prediction reduces to a fitted input or to a self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: FlashVTG is trained with standard supervised losses (Focal, L1, SampledNCE, Saliency, and the proposed Clip-Aware Score Loss) and evaluated on external benchmarks (QVHighlights, TACoS, Charades-STA, TVSum, YouTube-HL). The losses compare network outputs to ground-truth labels; they do not fit a parameter to a target and then rename that fit as a prediction. The Clip-Aware Score Loss in Eq. (10) aligns predicted confidence scores cfinal with target saliency scores sgt, where sgt is the external highlight-detection label, not a function of the model's own outputs. The ablation in Table 8 is a standard component study on a validation set, not a post-hoc fit to test metrics. No load-bearing step is justified by a self-citation chain: the borrowed Adaptive Cross Attention module is attributed to external work (CG-DETR), and the feature pyramid is a standard construction cited to external sources. The internal dimension mismatch noted between the pyramid-length cfinal from Eqs. (6)-(8) and the length-L sgt in Eq. (10) is a specification/completeness defect, not circularity, because the target is still an independent ground-truth signal. Likewise, the abstract's headline gains using InternVideo2 versus same-backbone gains of 1.4% are a comparison-fairness concern, not a circular-reasoning concern. The derivation chain, such as it is, is self-contained against external benchmarks rather than equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim is an empirical performance improvement. It rests on standard assumptions of supervised deep learning and pretrained feature extractors, and on the comparability of benchmark evaluations. The architecture introduces learnable scale weights and hyperparameters rather than new physical or mathematical entities.

free parameters (5)
  • K (number of temporal scales) = 4 or 5
    Hyperparameter controlling the depth of the temporal feature pyramid; set by hand per dataset.
  • Ld (dummy token count) = not stated
    Number of learnable dummy tokens in Adaptive Cross Attention; hyperparameter.
  • Loss weights (lambda_Reg, lambda_Cls, lambda_CAS, lambda_SNCE, lambda_Sal) = not stated
    Weights balancing five loss terms; chosen by hand.
  • Ck (per-scale learnable factor) = learned
    Learnable parameter in Eq. (5) controlling scale influence on boundary prediction.
  • x (ASR weighting) = learned
    Learnable scalar in Eq. (9) balancing intra- and inter-scale confidence scores.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Pretrained feature encoders (CLIP, SlowFast, InternVideo2) provide informative representations for VTG.
    The method operates on frozen features and does not re-evaluate encoder quality.
  • domain assumption Benchmark annotations and evaluation protocols are consistent across compared methods.
    Reported comparisons assume identical data splits and metrics; the paper follows prior work.
  • domain assumption Train/test splits are i.i.d. and distribution shift is negligible.
    Standard supervised learning assumption for the five datasets.
  • domain assumption The HD saliency labels can serve as effective auxiliary supervision for MR confidence scores.
    Justifies Clip-Aware Score Loss (Eq. 10); not proven, only empirically motivated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FlashVTG: Feature Layering and Adaptive Score Handling Network for Video Temporal Grounding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OKTCMYB5

@misc{pith2026241213441,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FlashVTG: Feature Layering and Adaptive Score Handling Network for Video Temporal Grounding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OKTCMYB5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13441}
}
read the original abstract

Text-guided Video Temporal Grounding (VTG) aims to localize relevant segments in untrimmed videos based on textual descriptions, encompassing two subtasks: Moment Retrieval (MR) and Highlight Detection (HD). Although previous typical methods have achieved commendable results, it is still challenging to retrieve short video moments. This is primarily due to the reliance on sparse and limited decoder queries, which significantly constrain the accuracy of predictions. Furthermore, suboptimal outcomes often arise because previous methods rank predictions based on isolated predictions, neglecting the broader video context. To tackle these issues, we introduce FlashVTG, a framework featuring a Temporal Feature Layering (TFL) module and an Adaptive Score Refinement (ASR) module. The TFL module replaces the traditional decoder structure to capture nuanced video content variations across multiple temporal scales, while the ASR module improves prediction ranking by integrating context from adjacent moments and multi-temporal-scale features. Extensive experiments demonstrate that FlashVTG achieves state-of-the-art performance on four widely adopted datasets in both MR and HD. Specifically, on the QVHighlights dataset, it boosts mAP by 5.8% for MR and 3.3% for HD. For short-moment retrieval, FlashVTG increases mAP to 125% of previous SOTA performance. All these improvements are made without adding training burdens, underscoring its effectiveness. Our code is available at https://github.com/Zhuo-Cao/FlashVTG.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13441 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of Model Performance on the Moment Retrieval Task using video query pair from QVHighlights [16]. Ground Truth consists of two short moments, both of which are precisely retrieved by our model. In contrast, Moment-DETR [16], the established benchmark, and R2-Tuning [29], the previously leading method, failed to accurately retrieve the designated moments. enhance the ability to accurately predict moments of… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the FlashVTG Framework. As depicted in the blue section below, input videos and queries are first processed through frozen encoders to extract corresponding video and text features. These text features, concatenated with encoded Dummy tokens to form the Key, are merged with video text features in the Feature Fusion module to create Fused Features. These are then directed into the Temporal Feature Module … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Sparse-Dense Side-Tuner for efficient Video Temporal Grounding

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SDST is a parameter-efficient, anchor-free side-tuning architecture for video temporal grounding that matches or beats state-of-the-art methods with about 73% fewer trainable parameters.

  2. SMART: Shot-Aware Multimodal Video Moment Retrieval with Audio-Enhanced MLLM

    cs.CV 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    SMART, an audio-enhanced MLLM with shot-aware token compression, reports new state-of-the-art moment retrieval accuracy on Charades-STA and QVHighlights.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Localizing mo- ments in video with natural language

    Lisa Anne Hendricks, Oliver Wang, Eli Shechtman, Josef Sivic, Trevor Darrell, and Bryan Russell. Localizing mo- ments in video with natural language. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 5803–5812, 2017. 3

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Joint visual and audio learning for video highlight detection

    Taivanbat Badamdorj, Mrigank Rochan, Yang Wang, and Li Cheng. Joint visual and audio learning for video highlight detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 8127–8137, 2021. 8

    work page 2021

  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 confer- ence on computer vision, pages 213–229. Springer, 2020. 1

    2020

  4. [4]

    Rethinking the bottom-up frame- work for query-based video localization

    Long Chen, Chujie Lu, Siliang Tang, Jun Xiao, Dong Zhang, Chilie Tan, and Xiaolin Li. Rethinking the bottom-up frame- work for query-based video localization. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 34, pages 10551–10558, 2020. 3

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Semantic proposal for activity localization in videos via sentence query

    Shaoxiang Chen and Yu-Gang Jiang. Semantic proposal for activity localization in videos via sentence query. In Pro- ceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 33, pages 8199–8206, 2019. 7

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Slowfast networks for video recognition

    Christoph Feichtenhofer, Haoqi Fan, Jitendra Malik, and Kaiming He. Slowfast networks for video recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 6202–6211, 2019. 2, 4, 6, 7, 8

    work page 2019

  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. 3, 6

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Mac: Mining activity concepts for language-based temporal local- ization

    Runzhou Ge, Jiyang Gao, Kan Chen, and Ram Nevatia. Mac: Mining activity concepts for language-based temporal local- ization. In 2019 IEEE winter conference on applications of computer vision (WACV), pages 245–253. IEEE, 2019. 3

    work page 2019

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Nas-fpn: Learning scalable feature pyramid architecture for object de- tection

    Golnaz Ghiasi, Tsung-Yi Lin, and Quoc V Le. Nas-fpn: Learning scalable feature pyramid architecture for object de- tection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 7036–7045,

  2. [10]

    Video2gif: Automatic generation of animated gifs from video

    Michael Gygli, Yale Song, and Liangliang Cao. Video2gif: Automatic generation of animated gifs from video. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pat- tern recognition, pages 1001–1009, 2016. 3, 8

    2016

  3. [11]

    Tripping through time: Efficient localization of activi- ties in videos

    Meera Hahn, Asim Kadav, James M Rehg, and Hans Peter Graf. Tripping through time: Efficient localization of activi- ties in videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09936, 2019. 7

    1904 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Mini-net: Multiple instance ranking network for video highlight detection

    Fa-Ting Hong, Xuanteng Huang, Wei-Hong Li, and Wei- Shi Zheng. Mini-net: Multiple instance ranking network for video highlight detection. In European Conference on Com- puter Vision, pages 345–360. Springer, 2020. 8

    2020

  5. [13]

    Semantic fusion augmentation and semantic boundary detection: A novel approach to multi-target video moment retrieval

    Cheng Huang, Yi-Lun Wu, Hong-Han Shuai, and Ching- Chun Huang. Semantic fusion augmentation and semantic boundary detection: A novel approach to multi-target video moment retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Win- ter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , pages 6...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Knowing where to focus: Event-aware transformer for video grounding

    Jinhyun Jang, Jungin Park, Jin Kim, Hyeongjun Kwon, and Kwanghoon Sohn. Knowing where to focus: Event-aware transformer for video grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 13846–13856, 2023. 3, 6, 7

    2023

  7. [15]

    Prior knowledge integra- tion via LLM encoding and pseudo event regulation for video moment retrieval

    Yiyang Jiang, Wengyu Zhang, Xulu Zhang, Xiaoyong Wei, Chang Wen Chen, and Qing Li. Prior knowledge integra- tion via LLM encoding and pseudo event regulation for video moment retrieval. In ACM Multimedia 2024, 2024. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8

    2024

  8. [16]

    Detecting moments and highlights in videos via natural language queries

    Jie Lei, Tamara L Berg, and Mohit Bansal. Detecting moments and highlights in videos via natural language queries. Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 34:11846–11858, 2021. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8

    2021

  9. [17]

    Align before fuse: Vision and language representation learn- ing with momentum distillation

    Junnan Li, Ramprasaath Selvaraju, Akhilesh Gotmare, Shafiq Joty, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Chu Hong Hoi. Align before fuse: Vision and language representation learn- ing with momentum distillation. Advances in neural infor- mation processing systems, 34:9694–9705, 2021. 7

    2021

  10. [18]

    Mo- mentdiff: Generative video moment retrieval from random to real

    Pandeng Li, Chen-Wei Xie, Hongtao Xie, Liming Zhao, Lei Zhang, Yun Zheng, Deli Zhao, and Yongdong Zhang. Mo- mentdiff: Generative video moment retrieval from random to real. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36, 2024. 6

    2024

  11. [19]

    Probing visual-audio repre- sentation for video highlight detection via hard-pairs guided contrastive learning

    Shuaicheng Li, Feng Zhang, Kunlin Yang, Lingbo Liu, Shi- nan Liu, Jun Hou, and Shuai Yi. Probing visual-audio repre- sentation for video highlight detection via hard-pairs guided contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.10157 ,

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Univtg: Towards unified video- language temporal grounding

    Kevin Qinghong Lin, Pengchuan Zhang, Joya Chen, Shra- man Pramanick, Difei Gao, Alex Jinpeng Wang, Rui Yan, and Mike Zheng Shou. Univtg: Towards unified video- language temporal grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 2794–...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Focal loss for dense object detection

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Doll´ar. Focal loss for dense object detection. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2980–2988, 2017. 6

    2017

  14. [22]

    Query sensitive dynamic web video thumbnail generation

    Chunxi Liu, Qingming Huang, and Shuqiang Jiang. Query sensitive dynamic web video thumbnail generation. In 2011 18th IEEE international conference on image processing , pages 2449–2452. IEEE, 2011. 3

    2011

  15. [23]

    Memory-guided semantic learning network for temporal sentence grounding

    Daizong Liu, Xiaoye Qu, Xing Di, Yu Cheng, Zichuan Xu, and Pan Zhou. Memory-guided semantic learning network for temporal sentence grounding. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 1665–1673, 2022. 3

    2022

  16. [24]

    Context-aware biaffine localizing network for temporal sentence grounding

    Daizong Liu, Xiaoye Qu, Jianfeng Dong, Pan Zhou, Yu Cheng, Wei Wei, Zichuan Xu, and Yulai Xie. Context-aware biaffine localizing network for temporal sentence grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 11235–11244, 2021. 3

    2021

  17. [25]

    Reducing the vi- sion and language bias for temporal sentence grounding

    Daizong Liu, Xiaoye Qu, and Wei Hu. Reducing the vi- sion and language bias for temporal sentence grounding. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 4092–4101, 2022. 3

    2022

  18. [26]

    Jointly cross-and self-modal graph attention network for query-based moment localiza- tion

    Daizong Liu, Xiaoye Qu, Xiao-Yang Liu, Jianfeng Dong, Pan Zhou, and Zichuan Xu. Jointly cross-and self-modal graph attention network for query-based moment localiza- tion. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Confer- ence on Multimedia, pages 4070–4078, 2020. 3

    2020

  19. [27]

    Attentive moment retrieval in videos

    Meng Liu, Xiang Wang, Liqiang Nie, Xiangnan He, Bao- quan Chen, and Tat-Seng Chua. Attentive moment retrieval in videos. In The 41st international ACM SIGIR conference on research & development in information retrieval , pages 15–24, 2018. 3

    2018

  20. [28]

    Multi-task deep visual-semantic embedding for video thumbnail selection

    Wu Liu, Tao Mei, Yongdong Zhang, Cherry Che, and Jiebo Luo. Multi-task deep visual-semantic embedding for video thumbnail selection. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 3707– 3715, 2015. 3

    2015

  21. [29]

    r2-tuning: Ef- ficient image-to-video transfer learning for video temporal grounding

    Ye Liu, Jixuan He, Wanhua Li, Junsik Kim, Donglai Wei, Hanspeter Pfister, and Chang Wen Chen. r2-tuning: Ef- ficient image-to-video transfer learning for video temporal grounding. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2024. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8

    2024

  22. [30]

    Umt: Unified multi-modal transformers for joint video moment retrieval and highlight detection

    Ye Liu, Siyuan Li, Yang Wu, Chang-Wen Chen, Ying Shan, and Xiaohu Qie. Umt: Unified multi-modal transformers for joint video moment retrieval and highlight detection. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3042–3051, 2022. ...

    2022

  23. [31]

    Debug: A dense bottom-up grounding approach for natural language video localization

    Chujie Lu, Long Chen, Chilie Tan, Xiaolin Li, and Jun Xiao. Debug: A dense bottom-up grounding approach for natural language video localization. InProceedings of the 2019 Con- ference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing and the 9th International Joint Confere...

    2019

  24. [32]

    Correlation-guided query-dependency calibration in video representation learning for temporal grounding

    WonJun Moon, Sangeek Hyun, SuBeen Lee, and Jae-Pil Heo. Correlation-guided query-dependency calibration in video representation learning for temporal grounding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08835, 2023. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Query-dependent video representa- tion for moment retrieval and highlight detection

    WonJun Moon, Sangeek Hyun, SangUk Park, Dongchan Park, and Jae-Pil Heo. Query-dependent video representa- tion for moment retrieval and highlight detection. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 23023–23033, 2023. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8

    2023

  26. [34]

    Local- global video-text interactions for temporal grounding

    Jonghwan Mun, Minsu Cho, and Bohyung Han. Local- global video-text interactions for temporal grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 10810–10819, 2020. 3

    2020

  27. [35]

    Glove: Global vectors for word representation

    Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Man- ning. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP) , pages 1532–1543,

    2014

  28. [36]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion. In International conference on machine learning, ...

    2021

  29. [37]

    Ground- ing action descriptions in videos

    Michaela Regneri, Marcus Rohrbach, Dominikus Wetzel, Stefan Thater, Bernt Schiele, and Manfred Pinkal. Ground- ing action descriptions in videos. Transactions of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics, 1:25–36, 2013. 6

    2013

  30. [38]

    Adaptive video highlight detection by learning from user history

    Mrigank Rochan, Mahesh Kumar Krishna Reddy, Linwei Ye, and Yang Wang. Adaptive video highlight detection by learning from user history. In European conference on com- puter vision, pages 261–278. Springer, 2020. 3

    2020

  31. [39]

    Find and focus: Retrieve and localize video events with natural language queries

    Dian Shao, Yu Xiong, Yue Zhao, Qingqiu Huang, Yu Qiao, and Dahua Lin. Find and focus: Retrieve and localize video events with natural language queries. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pages 200–216, 2018. 3

    2018

  32. [40]

    Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition

    Karen Simonyan. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556, 2014. 7

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Tvsum: Summarizing web videos using titles

    Yale Song, Jordi Vallmitjana, Amanda Stent, and Alejandro Jaimes. Tvsum: Summarizing web videos using titles. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5179–5187, 2015. 7, 8

    2015

  34. [42]

    Tr- detr: Task-reciprocal transformer for joint moment retrieval and highlight detection

    Hao Sun, Mingyao Zhou, Wenjing Chen, and Wei Xie. Tr- detr: Task-reciprocal transformer for joint moment retrieval and highlight detection. In Proceedings of the AAAI Confer- ence on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 4998–5007,

  35. [43]

    Ranking domain- specific highlights by analyzing edited videos

    Min Sun, Ali Farhadi, and Steve Seitz. Ranking domain- specific highlights by analyzing edited videos. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part I 13 , pages 787–802. Springer, 2014. 3, 7, 8

    2014

  36. [44]

    Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023. 7

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Tempo- rally grounding language queries in videos by contextual boundary-aware prediction

    Jingwen Wang, Lin Ma, and Wenhao Jiang. Tempo- rally grounding language queries in videos by contextual boundary-aware prediction. InProceedings of the AAAI Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 34, pages 12168– 12175, 2020. 3

    2020

  38. [46]

    Learning trailer moments in full-length movies with co- contrastive attention

    Lezi Wang, Dong Liu, Rohit Puri, and Dimitris N Metaxas. Learning trailer moments in full-length movies with co- contrastive attention. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XVIII 16, pages 300–316. Springer, 2020. 8

    2020

  39. [47]

    Pyramid vision transformer: A versatile backbone for dense prediction without convolutions

    Wenhai Wang, Enze Xie, Xiang Li, Deng-Ping Fan, Kaitao Song, Ding Liang, Tong Lu, Ping Luo, and Ling Shao. Pyramid vision transformer: A versatile backbone for dense prediction without convolutions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , p...

    2021

  40. [48]

    Internvideo2: Scaling video foun- dation models for multimodal video understanding

    Yi Wang, Kunchang Li, Xinhao Li, Jiashuo Yu, Yinan He, Chenting Wang, Guo Chen, Baoqi Pei, Rongkun Zheng, Ji- lan Xu, Zun Wang, et al. Internvideo2: Scaling video foun- dation models for multimodal video understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.15377, 2024. 2, 6, 7

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Learning pixel-level distinctions for video highlight detection

    Fanyue Wei, Biao Wang, Tiezheng Ge, Yuning Jiang, Wen Li, and Lixin Duan. Learning pixel-level distinctions for video highlight detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 3073–3082, 2022. 8

    2022

  42. [50]

    Boundary proposal network for two-stage natural language video localization

    Shaoning Xiao, Long Chen, Songyang Zhang, Wei Ji, Jian Shao, Lu Ye, and Jun Xiao. Boundary proposal network for two-stage natural language video localization. In Pro- ceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 35, pages 2986–2994, 2021. 3

    2021

  43. [51]

    Bridging the gap: A unified video comprehension framework for mo- ment retrieval and highlight detection

    Yicheng Xiao, Zhuoyan Luo, Yong Liu, Yue Ma, Heng- wei Bian, Yatai Ji, Yujiu Yang, and Xiu Li. Bridging the gap: A unified video comprehension framework for mo- ment retrieval and highlight detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Rec...

    2024

  44. [52]

    Less is more: Learning highlight detection from video duration

    Bo Xiong, Yannis Kalantidis, Deepti Ghadiyaram, and Kris- ten Grauman. Less is more: Learning highlight detection from video duration. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 1258–1267, 2019. 8

    2019

  45. [53]

    Multilevel language and vision integration for text-to-clip retrieval

    Huijuan Xu, Kun He, Bryan A Plummer, Leonid Sigal, Stan Sclaroff, and Kate Saenko. Multilevel language and vision integration for text-to-clip retrieval. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 9062–9069, 2019. 3

    2019

  46. [54]

    Cross-category video high- light detection via set-based learning

    Minghao Xu, Hang Wang, Bingbing Ni, Riheng Zhu, Zhen- bang Sun, and Changhu Wang. Cross-category video high- light detection via set-based learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 7970–7979, 2021. 8

    2021

  47. [55]

    Unsupervised extraction of video highlights via robust recurrent auto-encoders

    Huan Yang, Baoyuan Wang, Stephen Lin, David Wipf, Minyi Guo, and Baining Guo. Unsupervised extraction of video highlights via robust recurrent auto-encoders. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 4633–4641, 2015. 8

    2015

  48. [56]

    Task-driven exploration: Decoupling and inter-task feedback for joint moment retrieval and highlight detection

    Jin Yang, Ping Wei, Huan Li, and Ziyang Ren. Task-driven exploration: Decoupling and inter-task feedback for joint moment retrieval and highlight detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18308–18318, 2024. 6

    2024

  49. [57]

    Temporal cue guided video highlight detection with low-rank audio-visual fusion

    Qinghao Ye, Xiyue Shen, Yuan Gao, Zirui Wang, Qi Bi, Ping Li, and Guang Yang. Temporal cue guided video highlight detection with low-rank audio-visual fusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vi- sion, pages 7950–7959, 2021. 8

    2021

  50. [58]

    Semantic conditioned dynamic modulation for tempo- ral sentence grounding in videos

    Yitian Yuan, Lin Ma, Jingwen Wang, Wei Liu, and Wenwu Zhu. Semantic conditioned dynamic modulation for tempo- ral sentence grounding in videos. Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, 32, 2019. 3

    2019

  51. [59]

    Dense regression network for video grounding

    Runhao Zeng, Haoming Xu, Wenbing Huang, Peihao Chen, Mingkui Tan, and Chuang Gan. Dense regression network for video grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10287–10296, 2020. 3

    2020

  52. [60]

    Man: Moment alignment network for natural language moment retrieval via iterative graph adjustment

    Da Zhang, Xiyang Dai, Xin Wang, Yuan-Fang Wang, and Larry S Davis. Man: Moment alignment network for natural language moment retrieval via iterative graph adjustment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition , pages 1247–1257, 2019. 3, 7

    2019

  53. [61]

    Span-based localizing network for natural language video lo- calization

    Hao Zhang, Aixin Sun, Wei Jing, and Joey Tianyi Zhou. Span-based localizing network for natural language video lo- calization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.13931, 2020. 6, 7

    2004 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Learning 2d temporal adjacent networks for moment localization with natural language

    Songyang Zhang, Houwen Peng, Jianlong Fu, and Jiebo Luo. Learning 2d temporal adjacent networks for moment localization with natural language. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 12870–12877, 2020. 3, 6, 7

    2020

  55. [63]

    Cross-modal interaction networks for query-based moment retrieval in videos

    Zhu Zhang, Zhijie Lin, Zhou Zhao, and Zhenxin Xiao. Cross-modal interaction networks for query-based moment retrieval in videos. In Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 655–664, 2019. 3

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.