Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 96 references

Weakly Supervised Temporal Sentence Grounding via Positive Sample Mining

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In weakly supervised temporal grounding, mining text-similar training clips as positives—rather than pushing them away—produces more discriminative supervision and higher localization accuracy.

desk verdict A solid, honest WSTSG plug-in with consistent gains, but the 'positive sample' premise is asserted rather than demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06557 v1 pith:IUPYBRPT submitted 2025-05-10 cs.CV

Lu Dong , Haiyu Zhang , Hongjie Zhang , Yifei Huang , Zhen-Hua Ling , Yu Qiao , Limin Wang , Yali Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords weaklysupervisedtemporalsentencegroundingpositivesampleminingcontrastivelearningranklossvideo-languagegroundedvideoquestionansweringtextembeddingsimilarity
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 claims that weakly supervised temporal sentence grounding—locating the interval a sentence describes in an untrimmed video using only video-level text-video pairs—improves when the training set is not treated as uniformly negative. Its Positive Sample Mining (PSM) method partitions the other training samples into text-similar and text-dissimilar subsets, then uses two margin-based losses to pull the anchor proposal toward similar samples and away from dissimilar ones. On Charades-STA, adding PSM to the PPS baseline raises R@1 at IoU=0.5 from 51.49 to 54.36 and at IoU=0.7 from 26.16 to 28.73, with gains also reported on ActivityNet Captions and on the NExT-GQA grounded video question answering benchmark. The practical point is that semantically related clips carry alignment signal that existing contrastive schemes throw away.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the similar/dissimilar partition of the training set, computed by cosine similarity of SentenceTransformer text embeddings. For an anchor query $Q_i$, the top-$k$ most similar queries form the positive set $S_i^{\mathrm{sim}}$ and all remaining samples form $S_i^{\mathrm{dis}}$. Two margin losses then carry the signal: the PSM-guided contrastive loss $\mathcal{L}^{\mathrm{CL}}_{\mathrm{PSM}}$ enforces $p\cdot q_{\mathrm{dis}} - p\cdot q_{\mathrm{sim}} + \gamma_1 \le 0$ (and the analogous proposal term), and the PSM-guided rank loss $\mathcal{L}^{\mathrm{rank}}_{\mathrm{PSM}}$ reuses those contrastive values as distance measures so that the similar sample is closer to the anchor proposal than to the negative intra-video proposal. The machinery matters because it converts a text-similarity structure into local proposal-space supervision without any timestamp labels.

What would settle it

Select a subset of a grounding dataset where each anchor's top-k text-similar queries are intentionally chosen to describe different moments from the anchor (same objects and verbs but different sub-events), train with PSM, and compare grounding accuracy on that subset against the no-PSM baseline; a drop would show the similarity assumption is violated. A simpler observation: compute the ground-truth temporal IoU between anchor moments and their mined similar samples; if a large share have near-zero IoU, the pull-close term is being supervised toward wrong moments.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that some remaining training samples are positive evidence, not noise: for each anchor query-video pair, PSM computes cosine similarity between the anchor text query and all other queries using pretrained SentenceTransformer features, keeps the top-k as a similar subset and the rest as a dissimilar subset, and then supervises the proposal encoder with two losses. The PSM-guided contrastive loss makes the anchor proposal closer to a similar sample than to a dissimilar sample, in both query and proposal modalities. The PSM-guided rank loss makes a similar sample closer to the anchor proposal than to the negative intra-video proposal, which sharpens the contrast between the predicted moment and confusing segments within the same video. The paper reports consistent improvements across the CNM, CPL, and PPS backbones, and its ablations show the two losses are complementary.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that if two text queries are close in SentenceTransformer embedding space, their corresponding video moments should also be close in proposal space; that equivalence can fail when sentences share words or style but describe different events, and the paper concedes that complex queries often have no reliable similar samples.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On Charades-STA, PPS+PSM raises R@1 at IoU=0.5 from 51.49 to 54.36 and R@1 at IoU=0.7 from 26.16 to 28.73.
  • On ActivityNet Captions, PPS+PSM raises R@1 at IoU=0.5 from 59.29 to 60.81 and improves most R@5 metrics across IoU thresholds.
  • On NExT-GQA, NG+PSM improves mIoP, mIoU, and Acc@GQA over both the NG baseline and the NG+ variant, without needing GPT-4 annotations.
  • Ablations on CNM, CPL, and PPS show the scheme transfers across different backbone proposal generators, and the training-time-only design adds no inference cost.
  • The two losses are complementary: the ablation table's best configuration uses all four loss terms together.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the same recipe could transfer to other weakly supervised video-language tasks, such as text-to-video retrieval or weakly supervised temporal action localization, wherever contrastive losses currently repel all cross-sample pairs.
  • Inference: because PSM outperforms a method that relies on GPT-4-generated annotations, cross-sample mining may serve as a general substitute for LLM pseudo-labels in grounded QA and similar annotation-hungry settings.
  • Inference: the fixed top-$k$ cutoff leaves room for an adaptive or confidence-weighted similar set; the paper's own ablation shows performance saturates around $k=20$, hinting that noisy members begin to contaminate the positive set.
  • Inference: a natural extension is sub-event-level mining for complex queries, which the paper names as its main limitation; retrieving positives for decomposed query fragments could directly attack the case where whole-sentence neighbors are unreliable.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Positive Sample Mining (PSM) for weakly supervised temporal sentence grounding (WSTSG). For each anchor query-video sample, PSM partitions the remaining training samples into similar and dissimilar subsets using SentenceTransformer cosine similarity of the text queries (Eqs. (1)-(3)). It then adds a PSM-guided contrastive loss, which pulls the anchor proposal toward the mined similar sample and pushes it away from the dissimilar sample, and a PSM-guided rank loss, which encourages the anchor proposal to be closer to the similar sample than the intra-video negative proposal. The method is evaluated on Charades-STA, ActivityNet Captions, and NExT-GQA, showing consistent improvements over PPS and NG baselines, with ablations on each loss term, the number of similar samples, feature types, backbones, and hyperparameters. The paper claims this is the first positive-sample-mining approach for WSTSG and that it also improves grounded VideoQA without requiring additional annotations.

Significance. If the mechanism holds, PSM provides a new source of discriminative supervision for WSTSG by exploiting cross-sample semantic correlations instead of treating all non-anchor samples as negatives. The paper is thorough on the experimental side: it validates on three benchmarks, integrates PSM with CNM, CPL, and PPS, ablates each component, and shows that the mining overhead is small relative to training cost. The NExT-GQA results are interesting because PSM improves grounding and QA over NG+ without the GPT-4 annotations used by NG+. The central claim is falsifiable, and the main open questions concern whether the mined samples are truly positive and whether the rank loss implements the stated distance objective; these are empirically and analytically checkable. If the authors resolve those questions, the contribution would be a useful addition to weakly supervised video-language grounding.

major comments (2)
  1. [III-B, Eqs. (1)-(3); Sec. V] The key premise of the method is that samples whose queries are textually similar to the anchor query have target moments that are semantically similar to the anchor moment. This premise is introduced in Eqs. (1)-(3), where the similar subset is selected purely by SentenceTransformer cosine similarity of text queries, but it is never measured or validated. The only direct evidence is the two hand-picked examples in Fig. 5, and the paper's own Limitations section (Sec. V) states that complex queries often have no reliable similar samples, with Fig. 6(d) showing a failure case. Because both PSM losses are applied only to the mined subset, a non-negligible false-positive rate would make the losses actively pull the anchor proposal toward unrelated temporal intervals, and the gains in Tables I-III could stem from generic inter-sample regularization rather than from positive-sample semantics. Please provide a quantitative validation of the mining: for a random sample of anchors on Charades-STA and ActivityNet Captions, compute the tIoU between the ground-truth moments of the anchor and the ground-truth moments of the top-k mined samples (or have a subset human-annotated), report precision@k for the k values considered in Table VI, and compare against a control with randomly selected 'similar' sets of the same size. This would directly test the causal claim in Sec. IV-D that the improvement is primarily due to discriminative supervision from positive samples.
  2. [III-D, Eqs. (7)-(12)] In Eqs. (7)-(12), the paper sets d(p,q_sim)=L_query and d(p,p_sim)=L_prop, i.e., it uses the clipped margin losses as distances. However, L_query = max(p·q_dis - p·q_sim + γ1, 0) measures how much the anchor proposal fails to be more similar to q_sim than to q_dis by margin γ1; it is not a distance to q_sim. The same holds for L_prop. Consequently, the rank loss in Eq. (11) does not implement the stated objective that similar samples are closer to the anchor proposal than to the negative intra-video proposal: when both L_query and L^n_query are zero, L^query_rank equals the constant γ5 with zero gradient; when both are nonzero, the loss can be reduced by lowering p·q_dis without increasing p·q_sim. The supporting statement in Sec. III-D that 'a lower PSM-guided contrastive loss indicates that the intra-video proposal is closer to similar samples' is therefore not supported. I recommend either reformulating the rank loss with an actual similarity/distance measure (e.g., max(p·q_sim - pn·q_sim + γ, 0)) and reporting whether the gains in Table IV persist, or providing a rigorous analysis of the hinge-based distance, including what happens in the inactive and double-active regions. The CR-loss ablation in Table V is related but does not by itself justify the hinge-based quantity as a distance.
minor comments (5)
  1. [III-D, Eq. (12)] Equation (12) writes L^prop_rank with d(p,q_sim)-d(pn,q_sim) but then substitutes L_prop - L^n_prop; based on Eq. (10), the first arguments should be p_sim, not q_sim. Please fix the typo.
  2. [IV-D] In the ActivityNet results paragraph, five metrics are listed (R@1 IoU=0.5, R@1 IoU=0.7, R@5 IoU=0.3, R@5 IoU=0.5, R@5 IoU=0.7) but only four percentage gains are reported; please correct the enumeration.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption mentions 'PSM-guided contrastive loss' twice in the final sentence; the second occurrence appears to mean 'PSM-guided rank loss' and should be corrected.
  4. [Tables I-III] The main results are reported without variance across runs; given that several improvements are in the 1-3 point range, please report multiple-seed means and standard deviations, or state explicitly if this is not standard practice for the baselines used.
  5. [Table III] The row 'Ours (NG + PSM)' is based on the NG baseline, while the comparison row 'NG+' uses additional GPT-4 annotations; please make this explicit in the table caption or in a footnote so that the comparison is not read as using the same training signal.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PSM's similar-sample supervision is an external, frozen-input training signal, and all headline gains are measured against independent ground-truth temporal IoU.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its stated objective. The similar/dissimilar partition in Eqs. (1)-(3) is computed from a frozen, external SentenceTransformer embedding of the text queries, not from the trained model and not from the evaluation metric. The PSM-guided contrastive and rank losses in Eqs. (4)-(13) are training objectives defined directly on those mined pseudo-labels, and the reported results (e.g., PPS+PSM raising R@1, IoU=0.5 from 51.49 to 54.36 on Charades-STA; R@1, IoU=0.5 from 59.29 to 60.81 on ActivityNet Captions; gains on NExT-GQA in Table III) are measured against ground-truth temporal annotations that are not functions of the mined similar set or of any fitted constant recycled as a prediction. No parameter is fitted to the target metric and then reported as a prediction of that same metric. The architecture is inherited from cited baselines (CPL, PPS, NG), but those citations are used as backbones and comparisons, not as a load-bearing uniqueness or justification chain authored by the present authors. The limitations section concedes that complex queries often have no reliable similar samples and that text-similar queries may not correspond to semantically similar moments; this is an empirical correctness risk about an assumption in the method, not a case where a derived output is equivalent to an input by construction. The minor self-citations (e.g., UGS [47], EgoExoLearn [3]) are contextual and do not support the central claim. Overall, the paper's core result is an independent, externally benchmarked empirical claim, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities, forces, or particles are introduced. The framework adds semantic subsets (similar and dissimilar sample sets) as training constructs, not independent entities, so the invented-entity ledger is empty.

free parameters (2)
  • Margin hyperparameters gamma1-gamma6 = 0.5 for gamma1-gamma4; 0.15 for gamma5-gamma6
    Hand-tuned on Charades-STA; ablation in Fig. 4 shows sensitivity, especially for gamma5 and gamma6.
  • Top-k similar samples = 20
    Selected by hand; ablation in Table VI shows performance saturates around k=20.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Query-text similarity is a valid proxy for proposal temporal similarity.
    Eqs. (1)-(3) select positive samples using cosine similarity of SentenceTransformer text embeddings; no temporal labels verify that similar queries imply similar grounded moments.
  • domain assumption SentenceTransformer embeddings provide a useful semantic similarity distribution for top-k retrieval.
    Table VII compares embedding choices and shows SentenceTransformer works best, but the method still assumes the embedding space reflects the semantics needed for grounding.
  • domain assumption The base reconstruction loss Lbase from CPL/PPS is a reliable proposal-quality signal.
    Section III-E keeps Lbase unchanged and relies on it to provide the primary proposal supervision; this is borrowed from prior work and not re-derived.
  • standard math L2 normalization makes inner product equal cosine similarity.
    Stated in Section III-C after all features are L2 normalized.
  • ad hoc to paper Hinge loss values can be interpreted as distances between samples.
    Eqs. (7)-(10) set d(p,q_sim)=Lquery and d(pn,q_sim)=Ln_query; when the hinge is inactive the distance is clipped to zero, which is not a meaningful geometric distance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Weakly Supervised Temporal Sentence Grounding via Positive Sample Mining." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IUPYBRPT

@misc{pith2026250506557,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Weakly Supervised Temporal Sentence Grounding via Positive Sample Mining},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IUPYBRPT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06557}
}
read the original abstract

The task of weakly supervised temporal sentence grounding (WSTSG) aims to detect temporal intervals corresponding to a language description from untrimmed videos with only video-level video-language correspondence. For an anchor sample, most existing approaches generate negative samples either from other videos or within the same video for contrastive learning. However, some training samples are highly similar to the anchor sample, directly regarding them as negative samples leads to difficulties for optimization and ignores the correlations between these similar samples and the anchor sample. To address this, we propose Positive Sample Mining (PSM), a novel framework that mines positive samples from the training set to provide more discriminative supervision. Specifically, for a given anchor sample, we partition the remaining training set into semantically similar and dissimilar subsets based on the similarity of their text queries. To effectively leverage these correlations, we introduce a PSM-guided contrastive loss to ensure that the anchor proposal is closer to similar samples and further from dissimilar ones. Additionally, we design a PSM-guided rank loss to ensure that similar samples are closer to the anchor proposal than to the negative intra-video proposal, aiming to distinguish the anchor proposal and the negative intra-video proposal. Experiments on the WSTSG and grounded VideoQA tasks demonstrate the effectiveness and superiority of our method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06557 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a) Existing methods regard all samples in the remaining [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our proposed method. First, we mine positive samples from the remaining training set to capture sophisticated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The architecture of query and proposal encoder. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ablation study by varying γ1 to γ6 for positive sample mining on the Charades-STA dataset. When varying each γi , the remaining γ values are fixed. inative capability, as evidenced by the cosine similarity matrix of the entire Charades-STA dataset, which ranges narrowl…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The t-SNE results of the proposal spaces encoded by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Video summarization with long short-term memory

    Ke Zhang, Wei-Lun Chao, Fei Sha, and Kristen Grauman. Video summarization with long short-term memory. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 766–782, 2016

    2016

  2. [2]

    Video summarization using fully convolutional sequence networks

    Mrigank Rochan, Linwei Ye, and Yang Wang. Video summarization using fully convolutional sequence networks. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pages 347–363, 2018

    2018

  3. [3]

    Egoexolearn: A dataset for bridging asynchronous ego-and exo-centric view of procedural activities in real world

    Yifei Huang, Guo Chen, Jilan Xu, Mingfang Zhang, Lijin Yang, Baoqi Pei, Hongjie Zhang, Lu Dong, Yali Wang, Limin Wang, et al. Egoexolearn: A dataset for bridging asynchronous ego-and exo-centric view of procedural activities in real world. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 22072–22086, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    Dual encoding for zero-example video retrieval

    Jianfeng Dong, Xirong Li, Chaoxi Xu, Shouling Ji, Yuan He, Gang Yang, and Xun Wang. Dual encoding for zero-example video retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9346–9355, 2019

    2019

  5. [5]

    Multi-modal transformer for video retrieval

    Valentin Gabeur, Chen Sun, Karteek Alahari, and Cordelia Schmid. Multi-modal transformer for video retrieval. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 214–229, 2020

    2020

  6. [6]

    T2vlad: global-local sequence alignment for text-video retrieval

    Xiaohan Wang, Linchao Zhu, and Yi Yang. T2vlad: global-local sequence alignment for text-video retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 5079– 5088, 2021

    2021

  7. [7]

    Mutual context network for jointly estimating egocentric gaze and action

    Yifei Huang, Minjie Cai, Zhenqiang Li, Feng Lu, and Yoichi Sato. Mutual context network for jointly estimating egocentric gaze and action. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 29:7795–7806, 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Look closer to ground better: Weakly-supervised temporal grounding of sentence in video

    Zhenfang Chen, Lin Ma, Wenhan Luo, Peng Tang, and Kwan-Yee K Wong. Look closer to ground better: Weakly-supervised temporal grounding of sentence in video. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.09308 , 2020

    arXiv 2001

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    Predicting gaze in egocentric video by learning task-dependent attention transition

    Yifei Huang, Minjie Cai, Zhenqiang Li, and Yoichi Sato. Predicting gaze in egocentric video by learning task-dependent attention transition. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision , 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    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 Computer Vision , pages 5267–5275, 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    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 Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 2986–2994, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Univtg: Towards unified video-language temporal grounding

    Kevin Qinghong Lin, Pengchuan Zhang, Joya Chen, Shraman 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 2794–2804, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Mac: Mining activity concepts for language-based temporal localization

    Runzhou Ge, Jiyang Gao, Kan Chen, and Ram Nevatia. Mac: Mining activity concepts for language-based temporal localization. In 2019 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) , pages 245–253. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    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

    2020

  7. [15]

    Progressive localization networks for language-based moment localization

    Qi Zheng, Jianfeng Dong, Xiaoye Qu, Xun Yang, Yabing Wang, Pan Zhou, Baolong Liu, and Xun Wang. Progressive localization networks for language-based moment localization. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications and Applications , 19(2):1–21, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Weakly supervised temporal sentence grounding with gaussian- based contrastive proposal learning

    Minghang Zheng, Yanjie Huang, Qingchao Chen, Yuxin Peng, and Yang Liu. Weakly supervised temporal sentence grounding with gaussian- based contrastive proposal learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 15555– 15564, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Gaussian mixture proposals with pull-push learning scheme to capture diverse events for weakly supervised temporal video grounding

    Sunoh Kim, Jungchan Cho, Joonsang Yu, YoungJoon Yoo, and Jin Young Choi. Gaussian mixture proposals with pull-push learning scheme to capture diverse events for weakly supervised temporal video grounding. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Wslln: Weakly supervised natural language localization networks

    Mingfei Gao, Larry S Davis, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. Wslln: Weakly supervised natural language localization networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.00239, 2019

    1909 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Cross-sentence temporal and semantic relations in video activity localisation

    Jiabo Huang, Yang Liu, Shaogang Gong, and Hailin Jin. Cross-sentence temporal and semantic relations in video activity localisation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 7199–7208, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Logan: Latent graph co-attention network for weakly-supervised video moment IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO TECHNOLOGY 12 retrieval

    Reuben Tan, Huijuan Xu, Kate Saenko, and Bryan A Plummer. Logan: Latent graph co-attention network for weakly-supervised video moment IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO TECHNOLOGY 12 retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications o...

    2021

  13. [21]

    Weakly- supervised video moment retrieval via semantic completion network

    Zhijie Lin, Zhou Zhao, Zhu Zhang, Qi Wang, and Huasheng Liu. Weakly- supervised video moment retrieval via semantic completion network. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 11539–11546, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Weakly- supervised multi-level attentional reconstruction network for grounding textual queries in videos

    Yijun Song, Jingwen Wang, Lin Ma, Zhou Yu, and Jun Yu. Weakly- supervised multi-level attentional reconstruction network for grounding textual queries in videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.07048 , 2020

    2003 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Weakly supervised video moment localization with contrastive negative sample mining

    Minghang Zheng, Yanjie Huang, Qingchao Chen, and Yang Liu. Weakly supervised video moment localization with contrastive negative sample mining. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 36, pages 3517–3525, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Localizing moments in video with natural language

    Lisa Anne Hendricks, Oliver Wang, Eli Shechtman, Josef Sivic, Trevor Darrell, and Bryan Russell. Localizing moments in video with natural language. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 5803–5812, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Cross-modal video moment retrieval with spatial and language-temporal attention

    Bin Jiang, Xin Huang, Chao Yang, and Junsong Yuan. Cross-modal video moment retrieval with spatial and language-temporal attention. In Proceedings of the 2019 on International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval, pages 217–225, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Temporally grounding natural sentence in video

    Jingyuan Chen, Xinpeng Chen, Lin Ma, Zequn Jie, and Tat-Seng Chua. Temporally grounding natural sentence in video. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 162–171, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Semantic conditioned dynamic modulation for temporal sentence grounding in videos

    Yitian Yuan, Lin Ma, Jingwen Wang, Wei Liu, and Wenwu Zhu. Semantic conditioned dynamic modulation for temporal sentence grounding in videos. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 32, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Multi-modal interaction graph convolutional network for temporal language localization in videos

    Zongmeng Zhang, Xianjing Han, Xuemeng Song, Yan Yan, and Liqiang Nie. Multi-modal interaction graph convolutional network for temporal language localization in videos. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 30:8265–8277, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Thinking inside uncertainty: Interest moment perception for diverse temporal grounding

    Hao Zhou, Chongyang Zhang, Yan Luo, Chuanping Hu, and Wenjun Zhang. Thinking inside uncertainty: Interest moment perception for diverse temporal grounding. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 32(10):7190–7203, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Camg: Context-aware moment graph network for multimodal temporal activity localization via language

    Yuelin Hu, Yuanwu Xu, Yuejie Zhang, Rui Feng, Tao Zhang, Xuequan Lu, and Shang Gao. Camg: Context-aware moment graph network for multimodal temporal activity localization via language. In CCF International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing, pages ...

    2023

  23. [31]

    Video moment retrieval via comprehensive relation-aware network

    Xin Sun, Jialin Gao, Yizhe Zhu, Xuan Wang, and Xi Zhou. Video moment retrieval via comprehensive relation-aware network. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 33(9):5281–5295, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Video corpus moment retrieval via deformable multi granularity feature fusion and adversarial training

    Xuemei Zhang, Peng Zhao, Jinsheng Ji, Xiankai Lu, and Yilong Yin. Video corpus moment retrieval via deformable multi granularity feature fusion and adversarial training. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Collaborative debias strategy for temporal sentence grounding in video

    Zhaobo Qi, Yibo Yuan, Xiaowen Ruan, Shuhui Wang, Weigang Zhang, and Qingming Huang. Collaborative debias strategy for temporal sentence grounding in video. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    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

    2009 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Cola: Weakly-supervised temporal action localization with snippet contrastive learning

    Can Zhang, Meng Cao, Dongming Yang, Jie Chen, and Yuexian Zou. Cola: Weakly-supervised temporal action localization with snippet contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 16010–16019, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Exploring sub-action granularity for weakly supervised temporal action localization

    Binglu Wang, Xun Zhang, and Yongqiang Zhao. Exploring sub-action granularity for weakly supervised temporal action localization. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 32(4):2186– 2198, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Learning proposal-aware re-ranking for weakly- supervised temporal action localization

    Yufan Hu, Jie Fu, Mengyuan Chen, Junyu Gao, Jianfeng Dong, Bin Fan, and Hongmin Liu. Learning proposal-aware re-ranking for weakly- supervised temporal action localization. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 34(1):207–220, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Cross-video contextual knowledge exploration and exploitation for ambiguity reduction in weakly supervised temporal action localization

    Songchun Zhang and Chunhui Zhao. Cross-video contextual knowledge exploration and exploitation for ambiguity reduction in weakly supervised temporal action localization. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    A snippets relation and hard-snippets mask network for weakly-supervised temporal action localization

    Yibo Zhao, Hua Zhang, Zan Gao, Weili Guan, Meng Wang, and Shengyong Chen. A snippets relation and hard-snippets mask network for weakly-supervised temporal action localization. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Solve the puzzle of instance segmentation in videos: A weakly supervised framework with spatio-temporal collaboration

    Liqi Yan, Qifan Wang, Siqi Ma, Jingang Wang, and Changbin Yu. Solve the puzzle of instance segmentation in videos: A weakly supervised framework with spatio-temporal collaboration. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 33(1):393–406, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Weakly supervised video instance segmentation with scale adaptive generation regulation

    ZHANG Yinhui, HAI Weiqi, HE Zifen, HUANG Ying, and CHEN Dongdong. Weakly supervised video instance segmentation with scale adaptive generation regulation. Optics and Precision Engineering , 31(18):2736–2751, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Towards video anomaly detection in the real world: A binarization embedded weakly-supervised network

    Zhen Yang, Yuanfang Guo, Junfu Wang, Di Huang, Xiuguo Bao, and Yunhong Wang. Towards video anomaly detection in the real world: A binarization embedded weakly-supervised network. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Vadclip: Adapting vision-language models for weakly supervised video anomaly detection

    Peng Wu, Xuerong Zhou, Guansong Pang, Lingru Zhou, Qingsen Yan, Peng Wang, and Yanning Zhang. Vadclip: Adapting vision-language models for weakly supervised video anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 38, pages 6074–6082, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Batchnorm-based weakly supervised video anomaly detection

    Yixuan Zhou, Yi Qu, Xing Xu, Fumin Shen, Jingkuan Song, and Heng Tao Shen. Batchnorm-based weakly supervised video anomaly detection. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Weakly supervised video moment retrieval from text queries

    Niluthpol Chowdhury Mithun, Sujoy Paul, and Amit K Roy-Chowdhury. Weakly supervised video moment retrieval from text queries. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 11592–11601, 2019

    2019

  38. [46]

    Vlanet: Video-language alignment network for weakly-supervised video moment retrieval

    Minuk Ma, Sunjae Yoon, Junyeong Kim, Youngjoon Lee, Sunghun Kang, and Chang D Yoo. Vlanet: Video-language alignment network for weakly-supervised video moment retrieval. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 156–171, 2020

    2020

  39. [47]

    Weakly supervised temporal sentence grounding with uncertainty-guided self-training

    Yifei Huang, Lijin Yang, and Yoichi Sato. Weakly supervised temporal sentence grounding with uncertainty-guided self-training. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18908–18918, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    Unsupervised hard example mining from videos for improved object detection

    SouYoung Jin, Aruni RoyChowdhury, Huaizu Jiang, Ashish Singh, Aditya Prasad, Deep Chakraborty, and Erik Learned-Miller. Unsupervised hard example mining from videos for improved object detection. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pages 307–324, 2018

    2018

  41. [49]

    Contrastive learning with hard negative samples

    Joshua Robinson, Ching-Yao Chuang, Suvrit Sra, and Stefanie Jegelka. Contrastive learning with hard negative samples. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04592, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Video corpus moment retrieval with contrastive learning

    Hao Zhang, Aixin Sun, Wei Jing, Guoshun Nan, Liangli Zhen, Joey Tianyi Zhou, and Rick Siow Mong Goh. Video corpus moment retrieval with contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pag...

    2021

  43. [51]

    Selective query-guided debiasing for video corpus moment retrieval

    Sunjae Yoon, Ji Woo Hong, Eunseop Yoon, Dahyun Kim, Junyeong Kim, Hee Suk Yoon, and Chang D Yoo. Selective query-guided debiasing for video corpus moment retrieval. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 185–200. Springer, 2022

    2022

  44. [52]

    Counterfactual two-stage debiasing for video corpus moment retrieval

    Sunjae Yoon, Ji Woo Hong, Soohwan Eom, Hee Suk Yoon, Eunseop Yoon, Daehyeok Kim, Junyeong Kim, Chanwoo Kim, and Chang D Yoo. Counterfactual two-stage debiasing for video corpus moment retrieval. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal ...

    2023

  45. [53]

    Curriculum multi-negative augmentation for debiased video grounding

    Xiaohan Lan, Yitian Yuan, Hong Chen, Xin Wang, Zequn Jie, Lin Ma, Zhi Wang, and Wenwu Zhu. Curriculum multi-negative augmentation for debiased video grounding. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 37, pages 1213–1221, 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    Bias-conflict sample synthesis and adversarial removal debias strategy for temporal sentence grounding in video

    Zhaobo Qi, Yibo Yuan, Xiaowen Ruan, Shuhui Wang, Weigang Zhang, and Qingming Huang. Bias-conflict sample synthesis and adversarial removal debias strategy for temporal sentence grounding in video. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pag...

    2024

  47. [55]

    Learnable negative proposals using dual-signed cross-entropy loss for weakly supervised video moment localization

    Sunoh Kim, Daeho Um, HyunJun Choi, and Jin Young Choi. Learnable negative proposals using dual-signed cross-entropy loss for weakly supervised video moment localization. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia , pages 5318–5327, 2024

    2024

  48. [56]

    Contextual similarity distillation for asymmetric image retrieval

    Hui Wu, Min Wang, Wengang Zhou, Houqiang Li, and Qi Tian. Contextual similarity distillation for asymmetric image retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9489–9498, 2022

    2022

  49. [57]

    Ames: Asymmetric and memory-efficient similarity estimation for instance-level retrieval

    Pavel Suma, Giorgos Kordopatis-Zilos, Ahmet Iscen, and Giorgos Tolias. Ames: Asymmetric and memory-efficient similarity estimation for instance-level retrieval. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 307–325, 2025

    2025

  50. [58]

    D3still: Decoupled differential distillation for IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO TECHNOLOGY 13 asymmetric image retrieval

    Yi Xie, Yihong Lin, Wenjie Cai, Xuemiao Xu, Huaidong Zhang, Yong Du, and Shengfeng He. D3still: Decoupled differential distillation for IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO TECHNOLOGY 13 asymmetric image retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Co...

    2024

  51. [59]

    Domain adaptation by constraining inter-domain variability of latent feature representation

    Ivan Titov. Domain adaptation by constraining inter-domain variability of latent feature representation. In proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human language technologies, pages 62–71, 2011

    2011

  52. [60]

    Exploiting inter-sample affinity for knowability-aware universal domain adaptation

    Yifan Wang, Lin Zhang, Ran Song, Hongliang Li, Paul L Rosin, and Wei Zhang. Exploiting inter-sample affinity for knowability-aware universal domain adaptation. International Journal of Computer Vision , 132(5):1800–1816, 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    Mining inter-video proposal relations for video object detection

    Mingfei Han, Yali Wang, Xiaojun Chang, and Yu Qiao. Mining inter-video proposal relations for video object detection. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 431–446, 2020

    2020

  54. [62]

    Imc- det: Intra–inter modality contrastive learning for video object detection

    Qiang Qi, Zhenyu Qiu, Yan Yan, Yang Lu, and Hanzi Wang. Imc- det: Intra–inter modality contrastive learning for video object detection. International Journal of Computer Vision , pages 1–20, 2024

    2024

  55. [63]

    Attention is all you need

    A Vaswani. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017

    2017

  56. [64]

    Learning spatiotemporal features with 3d convolutional networks

    Du Tran, Lubomir Bourdev, Rob Fergus, Lorenzo Torresani, and Manohar Paluri. Learning spatiotemporal features with 3d convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 4489–4497, 2015

    2015

  57. [65]

    Glove: Global vectors for word representation

    Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Manning. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1532–1543, 2014

    2014

  58. [66]

    Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . Association for Computational Linguistics, 11 2019

    2019

  59. [67]

    Dense-captioning events in videos

    Ranjay Krishna, Kenji Hata, Frederic Ren, Li Fei-Fei, and Juan Carlos Niebles. Dense-captioning events in videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 706– 715, 2017

    2017

  60. [68]

    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

    2024

  61. [69]

    Quo vadis, action recognition? a new model and the kinetics dataset

    Joao Carreira and Andrew Zisserman. Quo vadis, action recognition? a new model and the kinetics dataset. In proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 6299– 6308, 2017

    2017

  62. [70]

    Revisiting the" video" in video-language understanding

    Shyamal Buch, Cristóbal Eyzaguirre, Adrien Gaidon, Jiajun Wu, Li Fei- Fei, and Juan Carlos Niebles. Revisiting the" video" in video-language understanding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 2917–2927, 2022

    2022

  63. [71]

    Zero-shot video question answering via frozen bidirectional language models

    Antoine Yang, Antoine Miech, Josef Sivic, Ivan Laptev, and Cordelia Schmid. Zero-shot video question answering via frozen bidirectional language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:124–141, 2022

    2022

  64. [72]

    Weakly supervised temporal adjacent network for language grounding

    Yuechen Wang, Jiajun Deng, Wengang Zhou, and Houqiang Li. Weakly supervised temporal adjacent network for language grounding. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , 24:3276–3286, 2021

    2021

  65. [73]

    Reinforcement learning for weakly supervised temporal grounding of natural language in untrimmed videos

    Jie Wu, Guanbin Li, Xiaoguang Han, and Liang Lin. Reinforcement learning for weakly supervised temporal grounding of natural language in untrimmed videos. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia , pages 1283–1291, 2020

    2020

  66. [74]

    Counterfactual contrastive learning for weakly-supervised vision-language grounding

    Zhu Zhang, Zhou Zhao, Zhijie Lin, Xiuqiang He, et al. Counterfactual contrastive learning for weakly-supervised vision-language grounding. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 33:18123–18134, 2020

    2020

  67. [75]

    Regularized two-branch proposal networks for weakly-supervised moment retrieval in videos

    Zhu Zhang, Zhijie Lin, Zhou Zhao, Jieming Zhu, and Xiuqiang He. Regularized two-branch proposal networks for weakly-supervised moment retrieval in videos. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia , pages 4098–4106, 2020

    2020

  68. [76]

    Visual co-occurrence alignment learning for weakly-supervised video moment retrieval

    Zheng Wang, Jingjing Chen, and Yu-Gang Jiang. Visual co-occurrence alignment learning for weakly-supervised video moment retrieval. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia , pages 1459–1468, 2021

    2021

  69. [77]

    Local correspondence network for weakly supervised temporal sentence grounding

    Wenfei Yang, Tianzhu Zhang, Yongdong Zhang, and Feng Wu. Local correspondence network for weakly supervised temporal sentence grounding. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 30:3252–3262, 2021

    2021

  70. [78]

    Explore inter- contrast between videos via composition for weakly supervised temporal sentence grounding

    Jiaming Chen, Weixin Luo, Wei Zhang, and Lin Ma. Explore inter- contrast between videos via composition for weakly supervised temporal sentence grounding. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 267–275, 2022

    2022

  71. [79]

    Dynamic contrastive learning with pseudo-samples intervention for weakly supervised joint video mr and hd

    Shuhan Kong, Liang Li, Beichen Zhang, Wenyu Wang, Bin Jiang, Chenggang Yan, and Changhao Xu. Dynamic contrastive learning with pseudo-samples intervention for weakly supervised joint video mr and hd. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia , pages...

    2023

  72. [80]

    Counterfactual cross-modality reasoning for weakly supervised video moment localization

    Zezhong Lv, Bing Su, and Ji-Rong Wen. Counterfactual cross-modality reasoning for weakly supervised video moment localization. In Proceed- ings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia , pages 6539–6547, 2023

    2023

  73. [81]

    Scanet: Scene complexity aware network for weakly-supervised video moment retrieval

    Sunjae Yoon, Gwanhyeong Koo, Dahyun Kim, and Chang D Yoo. Scanet: Scene complexity aware network for weakly-supervised video moment retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 13576–13586, 2023

    2023

  74. [82]

    Omnipotent distillation with llms for weakly- supervised natural language video localization: When divergence meets consistency

    Peijun Bao, Zihao Shao, Wenhan Yang, Boon Poh Ng, Meng Hwa Er, and Alex C Kot. Omnipotent distillation with llms for weakly- supervised natural language video localization: When divergence meets consistency. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol...

    2024

  75. [83]

    Local-global multi-modal distillation for weakly-supervised temporal video grounding

    Peijun Bao, Yong Xia, Wenhan Yang, Boon Poh Ng, Meng Hwa Er, and Alex C Kot. Local-global multi-modal distillation for weakly-supervised temporal video grounding. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 738–746, 2024

    2024

  76. [84]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows

    Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 10012–10022, 2021

    2021

  77. [85]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision

    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 supervision. In International Conference on Machine Learning , p...

    2021

  78. [86]

    Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 12888–12900. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  79. [87]

    Gpt-4 technical report

    OpenAI. Gpt-4 technical report. 2023

    2023

  80. [88]

    Video graph transformer for video question answering

    Junbin Xiao, Pan Zhou, Tat-Seng Chua, and Shuicheng Yan. Video graph transformer for video question answering. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 39–58, 2022

    2022

  81. [89]

    Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation

    Ross Girshick, Jeff Donahue, Trevor Darrell, and Jitendra Malik. Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 580–587, 2014

    2014

  82. [90]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding

    Jacob Devlin. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  83. [91]

    An empirical study of end-to-end video- language transformers with masked visual modeling

    Tsu-Jui Fu, Linjie Li, Zhe Gan, Kevin Lin, William Yang Wang, Lijuan Wang, and Zicheng Liu. An empirical study of end-to-end video- language transformers with masked visual modeling. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 2...

    2023

  84. [92]

    Video swin transformer

    Ze Liu, Jia Ning, Yue Cao, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Han Hu. Video swin transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 3202– 3211, 2022

    2022

  85. [93]

    Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach

    Yinhan Liu. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 , 364, 2019

    1907 arXiv

  86. [94]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 , 2020

    2010 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Deberta: Decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention

    Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. Deberta: Decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.03654, 2020

    2006 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Visualizing data using t-sne

    Laurens Van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 9(11), 2008

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.