Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Toward Scalable Video Narration: A Training-free Approach Using Multimodal Large Language Models

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read VideoNarrator claims that adding a YOLO-World object-context module and a caption-verification module to an off-the-shelf multimodal LLM produces denser, more accurate video narrations than prompting the LLM alone.

desk verdict A plausible training-free DVC pipeline whose evaluation is too weak to support its headline claims; the reported gains are likely within noise on an undisclosed 45-question subset. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17050 v1 pith:KXXOCX6Q submitted 2025-07-22 cs.CV

Tz-Ying Wu , Tahani Trigui , Sharath Nittur Sridhar , Anand Bodas , Subarna Tripathi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords densevideocaptioningmultimodallargelanguagemodelstraining-freepipelinehallucinationreductiontemporalalignmentquestionansweringobjectdetectioncontextVideo-MME
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

VideoNarrator is a training-free pipeline that generates dense video narrations—timestamped captions for each video segment—by splitting the video into uniform chunks and asking an off-the-shelf multimodal large language model to describe each chunk. The paper argues that adding two modules to this base improves the narrations: a context provider that appends visible-object semantics detected by YOLO-World, and a caption verifier that filters out captions the model judges inaccurate. The central claim is that these roles work together to reduce hallucinations and improve temporal alignment without any task-specific training, making dense video captioning scalable to arbitrary video. The evidence comes from an evaluation protocol in which a text-only LLM answers multiple-choice questions about videos using only the generated captions; enabling both modules raises accuracy, for example from 44.44% to 53.33% for the Llama3-Llava-next-8B model. This matters because dense captions are costly to annotate by hand, so a plug-and-play recipe that improves them would support video question answering, summarization, and advertising analytics at scale.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the three-role modular pipeline. The caption generator divides the video into uniform chunks, samples frames per chunk, captions each frame, and summarizes the frame captions into a chunk-level narration; this chunking is what gives the output precise timestamps. The context provider uses an open-vocabulary object detector (YOLO-World) to list visible objects in the sampled frames, asks the same MLLM to describe those objects, and concatenates that description to the chunk narration. The caption verifier prompts the MLLM with the chunk's middle frame and a yes/no instruction, discarding any narration answered 'No.' The paper's 'together-makes-better' hypothesis is carried by these three roles: context enriches, verification filters, and the two work best in combination rather than separately.

What would settle it

Run a held-out human evaluation that counts factual errors (wrong objects, actions, attributes) and timestamp misalignments in captions from the baseline versus the full pipeline; if the full pipeline does not reduce per-caption errors, the central claim fails. A cheaper check: strip detected-object names from the context-augmented captions before MCQ evaluation and see whether the accuracy gain disappears, which would indicate answer leakage rather than better narration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a modular, training-free pipeline—caption generator, context provider, and caption verifier—produces more reliable dense video narrations than a single general-purpose MLLM prompted per chunk. The generator chunks the video into fixed S-second segments, samples K frames per chunk, captions each frame, and summarizes them into one narration; the context provider runs an open-vocabulary object detector on those frames and appends an MLLM-written object description; the verifier re-prompts the same MLLM with the middle frame and the question 'Does this accurately describe the given content? Simply answer Yes/No,' deleting captions that receive a 'No.' Ablations show verification alone does not consistently help, object context alone helps most models, and both together give the largest gains, including 44.44% to 53.33% for Llama3-Llava-next-8B. The paper interprets this as context and verification working complementarily: the first adds object-aware detail, the second sifts correct from incorrect content.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation protocol assumes that an LLM's multiple-choice accuracy on captions measures how correct and informative the captions are, since no direct caption-to-ground-truth comparison, hallucination count, or temporal-alignment metric is reported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dense video captioning becomes a plug-and-play service: any off-the-shelf MLLM can generate timestamped narrations for arbitrary videos without fine-tuning on DVC datasets.
  • Object-level context and verification are complementary; using only one module gives smaller or inconsistent gains, so downstream systems should deploy both.
  • The same captions can feed video QA and summarization tasks, since the MCQ evaluator performs better when both modules are enabled.
  • MLLMs with strong object-grounding training, such as Molmo, gain less from external object context, so model choice affects how much the pipeline helps.
  • Pipeline parameters like chunk size, frames per chunk, and quantization are tunable without retraining: longer chunks and more frames improve accuracy, and AWQ quantization costs little.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported accuracy gains may partly reflect object-name leakage: because YOLO-World labels objects explicitly, the evaluator can answer some MCQs by name-matching rather than by understanding events; a test that removes object names from the captions would separate the two effects.
  • The verifier checks only one middle frame per chunk, so it cannot detect hallucinations or temporal misalignments occurring elsewhere in the chunk; sampling several frames per chunk would give a stricter test of the paper's temporal-alignment claim.
  • The 'reduced hallucination' claim is indirect, inferred from MCQ accuracy rather than measured by counting factual errors; a direct error-counting study would make the claim testable.
  • Because the pipeline is modular, the authors' suggestion to use different models in different roles could be pushed further—for instance, a cheap generator plus a strong verifier might beat the same model in all roles, which is a straightforward experiment to run.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes VideoNarrator, a training-free dense video captioning pipeline that combines off-the-shelf MLLMs and VLMs in three roles: a caption generator that describes fixed-length video chunks, a context provider that appends YOLO-World detections and their MLLM descriptions to the caption, and a caption verifier that filters captions judged inconsistent with a sampled frame. The authors evaluate caption quality indirectly by feeding generated captions to a text-only Llama3.1-8B evaluator, which answers Video-MME multiple-choice questions; accuracy on this MCQ task is the primary metric. Ablations over five MLLMs show that adding object context alone helps most models, adding the verifier alone is mixed, and the full pipeline improves several models (e.g., Llama3-Llava-next-8B from 44.44% to 53.33%). Additional analyses vary chunk size, frames per chunk, model quantization, and evaluator choice. The paper claims reduced hallucinations and improved temporal alignment, with the implications for scalable video understanding and downstream tasks.

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, the paper would offer a practical, modular, and scalable alternative to training-based dense video captioning: it uses off-the-shelf components, requires no training, and produces timestamped structured captions. The ablation across multiple MLLMs, the qualitative example, and the evaluator-swap consistency check are useful contributions. The main significance is limited, however, by the evaluation protocol: MCQ accuracy on an undisclosed subset of Video-MME is an indirect proxy that does not measure hallucination rate or temporal alignment directly, and the reported gains are small relative to the apparent test size. The paper would be strengthened by direct caption-quality metrics, disclosure of the evaluation subset, and statistical reliability analysis.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.1, Abstract, §6] The central claims of reduced hallucinations and improved temporal alignment are not supported by the reported metric. The protocol in §5.1 measures whether Llama3.1-8B can answer Video-MME multiple-choice questions from captions; it does not measure caption-to-ground-truth correspondence, hallucination frequency, or temporal alignment of events. Accuracy on downstream QA can improve for reasons unrelated to these claims, such as increased verbosity or inclusion of object names. Please report direct hallucination and temporal-alignment metrics (e.g., human-annotated caption correctness, event-boundary IoU, or a dedicated hallucination benchmark), or revise the claims to be about downstream QA accuracy only.
  2. [§5.3, Tables 1–3] The quantitative support for the pipeline is statistically weak. The tables report accuracy values without error bars, sample sizes, or significance tests, and the evaluation subset is not described. With baselines at 40.00% and 44.44%, the reported increments of 2.22 to 8.89 percentage points correspond to roughly one to four questions on a 45-question subset, and the MiniCPM-V row shows a decrease. Please disclose the number of videos and questions, the selection criterion for the Video-MME subset, and provide confidence intervals or significance tests (e.g., bootstrap or McNemar's test) for the key comparisons in Table 3.
  3. [§4, Caption Verifier] The caption verifier uses the same MLLM that generated the caption and is prompted with only the middle frame f_{K/2}. With the default K=2, this is the first frame, so the verifier cannot check the temporal consistency of a caption that summarizes both frames; the claimed temporal-alignment improvement is therefore not mechanistically supported. Please either use a verifier that sees all frames or a different MLLM, and evaluate temporal alignment independently of MCQ accuracy.
  4. [§4, §5.3, Context Provider] Appending YOLO-World object detections to the caption may improve MCQ accuracy through object-name leakage rather than through improved narration, because Video-MME questions often target visible objects and attributes. The current ablations do not separate the effect of adding object names from the effect of richer scene descriptions. A control experiment that provides the same object list directly to the evaluator, or an evaluation that measures caption quality independently of downstream QA, would clarify whether the context provider genuinely improves narration.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.4, Tables 4–5] The text says 'Table 5 and Table 4 analyze the effect of varying the chunk size S and the number of frames per chunk K, respectively,' but Table 4 is captioned 'Ablations on the number of frames per chunk' while its column is 'Chunk Size,' and Table 5 is captioned 'Ablations on the chunk size' with a '# of frames per chunk' column. Please align the captions, column headers, and textual references.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typos and formatting issues: 'LLama3' should be 'Llama3' in Tables 2 and 3; 'probability because' should be 'probably because' in §5.3; 'VideonNarrator' appears in the Figure 4 caption; and 'avail functionalities' in §6 is ungrammatical. Please proofread.
  3. [Figure 5] The text 'Correct Answer: Bd. ' 'D. Orange. ']' appears garbled and should be cleaned up.
  4. [§5.4, Figure 6] The 'subset of the evaluation data' used for the evaluator-choice comparison is unspecified; please state its size and composition so that the stability claim can be assessed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: VideoNarrator's improvements are measured against an external benchmark (Video-MME MCQ), and no component is fitted to the evaluation target.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that adding object context and a caption verifier improves dense caption quality. This is tested empirically with off-the-shelf MLLMs and YOLO-World on a subset of Video-MME, an externally curated video QA benchmark; the evaluator is a separate text-only LLM (Llama3.1-8B-Instruct) that answers MCQs from the generated captions alone. No parameter is fitted to the MCQ answers, and the pipeline components are not defined in terms of the evaluation outcome. The caption verifier uses the same MLLM as the generator and only inspects the middle frame, which is a mechanistic weakness that may limit temporal-alignment verification, but it does not make the reported gains true by construction. The unsupported leap from MCQ accuracy to 'reduced hallucinations and improved temporal alignment' is a validity threat (the metric may not measure those constructs), not a circular derivation; per the review rules, that concern belongs to correctness risk rather than circularity. I found no self-citation chain, imported uniqueness theorem, or fitted-input-renamed-as-prediction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the MCQ proxy, on fixed chunking as a substitute for temporal localization, and on the same model being able to verify its own outputs. These are assumptions, not derived facts.

free parameters (3)
  • chunk_size_S = 10 seconds (ablation: 5, 10)
    Hand-chosen uniform segment length in Section 5.2; determines temporal boundaries and caption granularity.
  • frames_per_chunk_K = 2 frames (ablation: 2, 4)
    Hand-chosen number of sampled frames per chunk in Section 5.2; K=4 improved accuracy in Table 5, but main results use K=2.
  • verifier_frame_index = middle frame f_{K/2}
    The verifier is prompted with the middle frame of the chunk (Section 4); this choice affects which captions are filtered.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Fixed uniform chunking produces meaningful temporal segments
    Section 3: videos are chunked every S seconds; the approach assumes event boundaries align with fixed intervals, which is not generally true.
  • ad hoc to paper The same MLLM can verify its own captions
    Section 4's caption verifier uses the same model as the generator, with no independent grounding; this is the load-bearing mechanism behind the claimed hallucination reduction.
  • domain assumption LLM-based MCQ evaluation measures caption quality
    Section 5.1 states that captions must convey accurate information for MCQs, but the evaluator (Llama3.1-8B) is not validated against human judgments or direct caption metrics.
  • domain assumption YOLO-World object detections are accurate and useful context
    Section 4: object detections are appended as context without analysis of detection errors or their effect on captions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Toward Scalable Video Narration: A Training-free Approach Using Multimodal Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KXXOCX6Q

@misc{pith2026250717050,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Toward Scalable Video Narration: A Training-free Approach Using Multimodal Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KXXOCX6Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17050}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we introduce VideoNarrator, a novel training-free pipeline designed to generate dense video captions that offer a structured snapshot of video content. These captions offer detailed narrations with precise timestamps, capturing the nuances present in each segment of the video. Despite advancements in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) for video comprehension, these models often struggle with temporally aligned narrations and tend to hallucinate, particularly in unfamiliar scenarios. VideoNarrator addresses these challenges by leveraging a flexible pipeline where off-the-shelf MLLMs and visual-language models (VLMs) can function as caption generators, context providers, or caption verifiers. Our experimental results demonstrate that the synergistic interaction of these components significantly enhances the quality and accuracy of video narrations, effectively reducing hallucinations and improving temporal alignment. This structured approach not only enhances video understanding but also facilitates downstream tasks such as video summarization and video question answering, and can be potentially extended for advertising and marketing applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17050 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. VideoNarrator is a training-free and configurable pipeline harnessing the power of off-the-shelf MLLMs and VLMs for dense video captioning, establishing a scalable solution for real-world video understanding tasks. vided with their timestamps, such as “52.2s - 74.4s the per￾son is then spreading mayonnaise on the bread.” This cre￾ates a structured snapshot of the video, capturing the scene semantics and dynamics wit… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dense video captioning with MLLMs. Videos are seg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The VideoNarrator pipeline includes MLLM and VLM modules functioned for different purposes: caption generator, context provider, and caption verifier. It is a training-free and configurable framework. The video in the example is sourced from [40]. 3. Dense Video Captioning with MLLMs Given a video V , the task of dense video caption￾ing (DVC) involves generating a sequence of narrations, each paired with a correspon… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evaluation protocol based on multiple choice question [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of VideoNarrator outputs and their corresponding answers to the MCQ (shown on the upper right) of different configurations: (left) Caption generator only. (middle) Caption generator + context provider. (right) Caption generator + context provider + captio…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evaluate the MCQs with different evaluators, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. SERUM: State Extraction and Refinement for User Modeling

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A multi-pass VLM annotation pipeline extracts action and intent state machines from egocentric video, then fits Markov models that improve on frequency baselines by a few points after normalization (activity top-1 48....

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Optimizing marketing strategy: a video analysis approach

    Shiv Ratan Agrawal and Divya Mittal. Optimizing marketing strategy: a video analysis approach. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 43(1):73–95, 2025. 1

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    METEOR: An Auto- matic Metric for MT Evaluation with Improved Correlation with Human Judgments

    Satanjeev Banerjee and Alon Lavie. METEOR: An Auto- matic Metric for MT Evaluation with Improved Correlation with Human Judgments. In Proceedings of the ACL Work- shop on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evaluation Measures for Ma- chine Translation and/or Summarization, pages 65–72, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 2005. Association for Computational Lin- 7 guistics. 4

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Mm- au:towards multimodal understanding of advertisement videos

    Digbalay Bose, Rajat Hebbar, Tiantian Feng, Krishna So- mandepalli, Anfeng Xu, and Shrikanth Narayanan. Mm- au:towards multimodal understanding of advertisement videos. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Con- ference on Multimedia , page 86–95, New York, NY , USA,

    work page

  4. [4]

    Blog: E-commerce product videos with examples, 2025

    Trend by Soona. Blog: E-commerce product videos with examples, 2025. 1

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    How far are we to gpt-4v? closing the gap to commercial multimodal models with open-source suites

    Zhe Chen, Weiyun Wang, Hao Tian, Shenglong Ye, Zhang- wei Gao, Erfei Cui, Wenwen Tong, Kongzhi Hu, Jiapeng Luo, Zheng Ma, et al. How far are we to gpt-4v? closing the gap to commercial multimodal models with open-source suites. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16821, 2024. 4, 5, 7

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Internvl: Scaling up vision foundation mod- els and aligning for generic visual-linguistic tasks

    Zhe Chen, Jiannan Wu, Wenhai Wang, Weijie Su, Guo Chen, Sen Xing, Muyan Zhong, Qinglong Zhang, Xizhou Zhu, Lewei Lu, et al. Internvl: Scaling up vision foundation mod- els and aligning for generic visual-linguistic tasks. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 24185–24198, 2024. 4

    2024

  7. [7]

    Yolo-world: Real-time open- vocabulary object detection

    Tianheng Cheng, Lin Song, Yixiao Ge, Wenyu Liu, Xing- gang Wang, and Ying Shan. Yolo-world: Real-time open- vocabulary object detection. In Proc. IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024. 2, 4, 5

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Vicuna: An open-source chatbot impressing gpt-4 with 90%* chatgpt quality

    Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E Gonzalez, et al. Vicuna: An open-source chatbot impressing gpt-4 with 90%* chatgpt quality. See https://vicuna. lmsys. org (accessed 14 April 2023) , 2(3):6,

    2023

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capa- bility in llms via reinforcement learning, 2025

    DeepSeek-AI. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capa- bility in llms via reinforcement learning, 2025. 7

    2025

  2. [10]

    Smith, Hannaneh Ha- jishirzi, Ross Girshick, Ali Farhadi, and Aniruddha Kem- bhavi

    Matt Deitke, Christopher Clark, Sangho Lee, Rohun Tri- pathi, Yue Yang, Jae Sung Park, Mohammadreza Salehi, Niklas Muennighoff, Kyle Lo, Luca Soldaini, Jiasen Lu, Taira Anderson, Erin Bransom, Kiana Ehsani, Huong Ngo, YenSung Chen, Ajay Patel, Mark Yatskar, Chris Callison- Bur...

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Sketch, ground, and refine: Top-down dense video caption- ing

    Chaorui Deng, Shizhe Chen, Da Chen, Yuan He, and Qi Wu. Sketch, ground, and refine: Top-down dense video caption- ing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 234–243, 2021. 2

    2021

  4. [12]

    Video-mme: The first-ever compre- hensive evaluation benchmark of multi-modal llms in video analysis

    Chaoyou Fu, Yuhan Dai, Yondong Luo, Lei Li, Shuhuai Ren, Renrui Zhang, Zihan Wang, Chenyu Zhou, Yunhang Shen, Mengdan Zhang, et al. Video-mme: The first-ever compre- hensive evaluation benchmark of multi-modal llms in video analysis. In CVPR, 2025. 2, 4, 7

    2025

  5. [13]

    The llama 3 herd of models

    Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Ab- hinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024. 4, 7

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    MiniCPM: Unveiling the potential of small language models with scalable training strategies

    Shengding Hu, Yuge Tu, Xu Han, Ganqu Cui, Chaoqun He, Weilin Zhao, Xiang Long, Zhi Zheng, Yewei Fang, Yuxiang Huang, Xinrong Zhang, Zhen Leng Thai, Chongyi Wang, Yuan Yao, Chenyang Zhao, Jie Zhou, Jie Cai, Zhongwu Zhai, Ning Ding, Chao Jia, Guoyang Zeng, dahai li, Zhiyuan Liu,...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Lita: Language instructed temporal-localization assistant

    De-An Huang, Shijia Liao, Subhashree Radhakrishnan, Hongxu Yin, Pavlo Molchanov, Zhiding Yu, and Jan Kautz. Lita: Language instructed temporal-localization assistant. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 202–218. Springer, 2024. 2

    2024

  8. [16]

    Automatic understanding of image and video advertisements

    Zaeem Hussain, Mingda Zhang, Xiaozhong Zhang, Keren Ye, Christopher Thomas, Zuha Agha, Nathan Ong, and Adri- ana Kovashka. Automatic understanding of image and video advertisements. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 1100–1110,

    2017

  9. [17]

    A better use of audio-visual cues: Dense video captioning with bi-modal transformer

    Vladimir Iashin and Esa Rahtu. A better use of audio-visual cues: Dense video captioning with bi-modal transformer. In British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC), 2020. 2

    2020

  10. [18]

    Multi-modal dense video captioning

    Vladimir Iashin and Esa Rahtu. Multi-modal dense video captioning. In The IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops , pages 958–959, 2020. 2

    2020

  11. [19]

    Video re- cap: Recursive captioning of hour-long videos

    Md Mohaiminul Islam, Ngan Ho, Xitong Yang, Tushar Na- garajan, Lorenzo Torresani, and Gedas Bertasius. Video re- cap: Recursive captioning of hour-long videos. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18198–18208, 2024. 3

    2024

  12. [20]

    Drive targeted marketing in retail with video ana- lytics insights, 2022

    JARVIS. Drive targeted marketing in retail with video ana- lytics insights, 2022. 1

    2022

  13. [21]

    Dense-captioning events in videos

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

    2017

  14. [22]

    Llama-vid: An image is worth 2 tokens in large language models

    Yanwei Li, Chengyao Wang, and Jiaya Jia. Llama-vid: An image is worth 2 tokens in large language models. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 323–340. Springer, 2024. 2

    2024

  15. [23]

    Development and challenges of object detection: A survey

    Zonghui Li, Yongsheng Dong, Longchao Shen, Yafeng Liu, Yuanhua Pei, Haotian Yang, Lintao Zheng, and Jinwen Ma. Development and challenges of object detection: A survey. Neurocomputing, 598:128102, 2024. 2

    2024

  16. [24]

    Video-llava: Learning united visual rep- resentation by alignment before projection

    Bin Lin, Yang Ye, Bin Zhu, Jiaxi Cui, Munan Ning, Peng Jin, and Li Yuan. Video-llava: Learning united visual rep- resentation by alignment before projection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10122, 2023. 2 8

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Llava-next: Im- proved reasoning, ocr, and world knowledge, 2024

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Yuheng Li, Bo Li, Yuanhan Zhang, Sheng Shen, and Yong Jae Lee. Llava-next: Im- proved reasoning, ocr, and world knowledge, 2024. 5

    2024

  18. [26]

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

    Muhammad Maaz, Hanoona Rasheed, Salman Khan, and Fa- had Shahbaz Khan. Video-chatgpt: Towards detailed video understanding via large vision and language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05424, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Dense video captioning: A survey of techniques, datasets and eval- uation protocols

    Iqra Qasim, Alexander Horsch, and Dilip Prasad. Dense video captioning: A survey of techniques, datasets and eval- uation protocols. ACM Comput. Surv., 57(6), 2025. 1, 2

    2025

  20. [28]

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

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

    2024

  21. [29]

    Moviechat: From dense token to sparse memory for long video understanding

    Enxin Song, Wenhao Chai, Guanhong Wang, Yucheng Zhang, Haoyang Zhou, Feiyang Wu, Haozhe Chi, Xun Guo, Tian Ye, Yanting Zhang, et al. Moviechat: From dense token to sparse memory for long video understanding. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pa...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Video understand- ing with large language models: A survey, 2024

    Yunlong Tang, Jing Bi, Siting Xu, Luchuan Song, Susan Liang, Teng Wang, Daoan Zhang, Jie An, Jingyang Lin, Rongyi Zhu, Ali V osoughi, Chao Huang, Zeliang Zhang, Pinxin Liu, Mingqian Feng, Feng Zheng, Jianguo Zhang, Ping Luo, Jiebo Luo, and Chenliang Xu. Video understand- ing w...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation lan- guage models, 2023

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timoth´ee Lacroix, Baptiste Rozi`ere, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aure- lien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guil- laume Lample. Llama: Open and efficient foundation la...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Cider: Consensus-based image description evalua- tion

    Ramakrishna Vedantam, C Lawrence Zitnick, and Devi Parikh. Cider: Consensus-based image description evalua- tion. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4566–4575, 2015. 4

    2015

  25. [33]

    Qwen2-vl: Enhancing vision-language model’s perception of the world at any resolution, 2024

    Peng Wang, Shuai Bai, Sinan Tan, Shijie Wang, Zhihao Fan, Jinze Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, Yang Fan, Kai Dang, Mengfei Du, Xuancheng Ren, Rui Men, Dayiheng Liu, Chang Zhou, Jingren Zhou, and Jun- yang Lin. Qwen2-vl: Enhancing vision-language model’s ...

    2024

  26. [34]

    T. Wang, H. Zheng, M. Yu, Q. Tian, and H. Hu. Event-centric hierarchical representation for dense video captioning. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology,

  27. [35]

    End-to-end dense video captioning with parallel decoding

    Teng Wang, Ruimao Zhang, Zhichao Lu, Feng Zheng, Ran Cheng, and Ping Luo. End-to-end dense video captioning with parallel decoding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , pages 6847– 6857, 2021. 2, 3

    2021

  28. [36]

    Jiayang Wu, Wensheng Gan, Zefeng Chen, Shicheng Wan, and Philip S. Yu. Multimodal large language models: A sur- vey. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData), pages 2247–2256, 2023. 1

    2023

  29. [37]

    Advise: Symbolism and external knowledge for decoding advertisements

    Keren Ye and Adriana Kovashka. Advise: Symbolism and external knowledge for decoding advertisements. In The Eu- ropean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2018. 1

    2018

  30. [38]

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

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

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Wein- berger, and Yoav Artzi

    Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Wein- berger, and Yoav Artzi. BERTScore: Evaluating Text Gen- eration with BERT, 2020. arXiv:1904.09675 [cs]. 4

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Towards automatic learning of procedures from web instructional videos

    Luowei Zhou, Chenliang Xu, and Jason J Corso. Towards automatic learning of procedures from web instructional videos. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 7590–7598, 2018. 3

    2018

  33. [41]

    End-to-end dense video captioning with masked transformer

    Luowei Zhou, Yingbo Zhou, Jason J Corso, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. End-to-end dense video captioning with masked transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 8739– 8748, 2018. 2 9

    2018

  34. [2023]

    Association for Computing Machinery. 1

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.