Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Leveraging Auxiliary Information in Text-to-Video Retrieval: A Review

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Auxiliary information is what moves the needle in text-to-video retrieval

desk verdict A thorough survey with a genuinely useful taxonomy of auxiliary information in T2V retrieval, but its comparative conclusions outrun the evidence — no no-auxiliary baseline, and class membership correlates with model scale. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23952 v1 pith:QMT57ARQ submitted 2025-05-29 cs.CV

Adriano Fragomeni , Dima Damen , Michael Wray This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords text-to-videoretrievalauxiliaryinformationsurveyvideo-textalignmentgeneratedcaptionsmultimodalbenchmarkcomparisonzero-shot
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 review of 81 methods tries to establish that text-to-video retrieval improves when models are fed more than the raw video–text pair: object regions, audio, temporal context, part-of-speech tags, and captions generated by large models. It organizes these extra signals into a taxonomy of video-extracted and text-extracted auxiliary information, and compares results across eight benchmarks in both zero-shot and fine-tuned settings. The paper's central empirical claim is that generated captions and multi-modal alignment strategies generally outperform text-refinement approaches, and that question-answering systems lead in zero-shot retrieval. A sympathetic reader would care because the ranking of what extra information helps most is exactly the design choice facing anyone building a retrieval system.

What carries the argument

The taxonomy of auxiliary information is the paper's organizing device. It splits every method by the source of its extra signal—video-extracted or text-extracted—and then by granularity (video-level versus region-level, sentence-level versus word-level) and by whether the signal is observed, from another modality, or generated by a vision-language or large language model. The comparative tables built on this taxonomy, with results separated into zero-shot and fine-tuned settings, are what carry the argument that some auxiliary classes work better than others.

What would settle it

Take one pre-training corpus and one video/text backbone, then train four copies of the model that differ only in auxiliary information: no extra signal, generated video captions (GVC), generated multimodal captions (GMC), and text refinement (GTC). If the GVC/GMC copies do not beat the text-refinement copy on the same benchmark, the paper's central comparative finding would fail; if the no-extra-signal copy matches the others, the whole premise that auxiliary information helps would be in doubt.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the semantic gap between video and text is best bridged by auxiliary information rather than by stronger alignment of the two raw modalities alone. It classifies 81 methods: video-extracted information divides into visual info (video-level expert features and temporal context; region-level object boxes and spatial-temporal dependencies), modality info (video tags, audio, and extra sensors), and generated info (generated video captions, generated multimodal captions, and question-answer systems); text-extracted information divides into textual info (temporal dependencies, multiple captions, text experts, part-of-speech tags, POS-derived captions, hierarchy dependencies) and generated info (generated text captions and multilingual translations). Comparing Recall@1, nDCG, and mAP across MSR-VTT, MSVD, ActivityNet Captions, DiDeMo, LSMDC, YouCook2, VATEX, and EPIC-KITCHENS-100, the paper finds that Q&A-based methods lead zero-shot retrieval, that generated video captions and multimodal alignment usually beat text-only refinement, that audio matters on domain-specific datasets such as cooking and movies, and that datasets with multiple captions per clip especially reward text-side methods.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes recall numbers reported by different papers are directly comparable once split into zero-shot and fine-tuned, even though the methods differ in pre-training data, model size, and training budget.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Retrieval systems should treat auxiliary signals as part of the input design, not as an optional trick: generated captions and multimodal alignment are the classes that most often top the leaderboards.
  • Zero-shot text-to-video retrieval can be led by interactive question-answer pipelines, which refine the query before matching.
  • Datasets that supply multiple captions per clip or multilingual captions unlock the strongest text-side methods, so data collection should prioritize caption multiplicity.
  • Audio is not a marginal extra: on domain-specific datasets like cooking and movies it is frequently the difference between top and mid-tier retrieval.
  • For untrimmed videos, temporal context from neighbouring clips or object tracks is a reliable source of gain.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's comparisons do not hold model scale, pre-training corpus, or training budget fixed; a fair reading is that the ranking of auxiliary classes is entangled with the size of the models that use them. A controlled study with one backbone and one pre-training set, varying only the auxiliary signal, would isolate the true contribution of each class.
  • The success of generated captions suggests that auxiliary information acts partly as data augmentation: the same video can be described many ways, and each description teaches the aligner something new. If so, purely scaling caption diversity could bring gains without changing architecture.
  • Q&A methods may owe their zero-shot edge to query expansion rather than to richer video understanding; an ablation that feeds the original query into the same model would test this.
  • The dataset analysis implies designers of new benchmarks should include audio and multiple human captions by default, since those are the signals most consistently tied to gains.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This survey reviews 81 text-to-video retrieval methods that incorporate auxiliary information beyond the video-text pair. The authors propose a taxonomy that divides auxiliary information into video-extracted (visual info, modality info, generated info) and text-extracted (textual info, generated info) categories, with subclasses such as Video Experts, Regions of Interest, Audio, Generated Video Captions, and Question-Answering. They also inventory the auxiliary information available in pre-training and downstream datasets (Table 3) and compare reported Recall@1, mAP, and nDCG results across eight benchmarks in zero-shot and fine-tuned settings (Section 4.2 and Appendix B). The paper concludes that generated and multimodal auxiliary information generally outperforms text-refinement approaches, that Q&A methods dominate zero-shot settings, and that auxiliary information 'has proven to be a powerful tool' in this field (Section 6).

Significance. If the comparative claims were reliable, the survey would fill a genuine gap: no prior survey focuses specifically on auxiliary information in text-to-video retrieval. The taxonomy is clearly presented and largely internally consistent, and the dataset inventory in Table 3 is a useful reference contribution. The appendix tables are a strength: they provide full metric tables for many methods, and I verified that key numbers such as MQVR's R@1 of 73.1 on MSR-VTT and 61.7 on MSVD appear consistently in both the main text and the appendix. The main weakness is that the central comparative conclusion is not supported by the reported evidence as presented, because the comparison across auxiliary-information classes is confounded with model scale, pre-training data, and inference protocol. The survey is still potentially valuable as a structured reference, but the comparative claims need substantial qualification or additional controlled analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2.1 and Tables 4-11] The comparison treats R@1 differences between auxiliary-information classes as evidence about the value of the auxiliary information, but class membership is confounded with pre-training data, model scale, and training budget. The zero-shot leaders in GMC/MM (InternVideo2, VAST, GRAM, LanguageBind) are foundation-scale models trained on large multimodal corpora, whereas the GTC/POS methods they are compared against (e.g., HowToCaption, GQE, TACo) are mostly built on smaller CLIP/HowTo100M-scale bases; the same pattern appears in the fine-tuned tables. The statement in Sec. 4.2.1 that the zero-shot/fine-tuned split 'allows a fairer comparison' is therefore not supported, and the conclusion in Sec. 6 that auxiliary information 'has proven to be a powerful tool' cannot be tested from these tables because no no-auxiliary baseline (e.g., plain CLIP or a single-encoder model without auxiliary inputs) is reported anywhere. I recommend adding at least one no-auxiliary baseline per dataset and setting, adding explicit caveats about pre-training and scale, or reframing the Sec. 4.2.3 and Sec. 6 conclusions as trends among the surveyed methods rather than causal statements about auxiliary-information type.
  2. [Sec. 2.3 and Tables 5-9] The Q&A methods (IVR-QA, MERLIN) are iterative question-generation/rerank pipelines that generate candidate-specific questions and answers at inference, as described in Sec. 2.3, whereas the other zero-shot entries are single-query embedding models. Reporting both under the same 'Zero-Shot' heading (Sec. 4.2.2, e.g., MSR-VTT R@1 67.9 for IVR-QA vs 55.9 for InternVideo2) conflates retrieval performance with a different inference protocol and a larger compute budget. The claim that 'Q&A-based approaches achieve the best performance' in zero-shot across five datasets is a statement about the pipeline, not about the auxiliary-information type. To make the comparison fair, Q&A methods should be either excluded from the per-class ranking or clearly reported as a separate protocol, with the additional inference cost stated.
  3. [Sec. 4.2.3] The conclusion that 'GVC- and GMC-based methods generally outperform text-refinement approaches (GTC)' is based on a hand-count of per-dataset winners (three datasets for GVC vs two for GTC), not on any controlled comparison. Within each dataset cell the number of methods per class is small, and the winner is often the only representative of a class (e.g., GTC on LSMDC is represented largely by GQE). Such counts are not a reliable basis for the general claim; they should be softened to observations about specific methods, or supported by a more systematic analysis that controls for backbone, pre-training data, and training budget.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.2] The first paragraph of Sec. 2.2 contains a duplicated reference: 'Multi-Modalities (MM) [30, 115, 115]'; the second [115] should be removed or replaced.
  2. [Table 3] The table uses the same check symbol for both video- and text-extracted information, despite the caption saying '✓ and ✓ indicate the video- and text-extracted information available'; using distinct symbols would avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Sec. 4.1] The class is defined as 'Temporal Dependency (TD)' in Table 2 but referred to as 'Textual Dependencies (TD)' in the Sec. 4.1 text; use one name consistently throughout.
  4. [Sec. 2.3 and Table 1] The term 'Questions&Answers' is unconventional; consider 'Question-Answering (Q&A)' for consistency with standard terminology.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the review's conclusions rest on externally reported benchmark scores; self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a survey paper, not a derivation. Its taxonomy (Tables 1-2) is an organizational scheme applied to 81 externally published methods, and the comparative findings in Sections 4.2 and 6 are empirical summaries of Recall@1, mAP, and nDCG values reported by those external papers. No equation is fitted, no quantity is predicted from another quantity, and no result is defined in terms of the conclusion, so the self-definitional and fitted-input-as-prediction patterns do not apply. The authors' own works appear (ConTra, Ego4D, EPIC-KITCHENS, JPoSE, EgoClip), but only as ordinary methods or datasets: ConTra is listed in the YouCook2 fine-tuned table with R@1 = 16.7, a mid-table score, and Ego4D is cited for its publicly documented auxiliary annotations, not as evidence for the review's central comparative claims. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or load-bearing argument is imported from the authors' prior work. The skeptical concern that R@1 gaps between auxiliary-information classes may be confounded by model scale, pretraining corpora, or Q&A rerank inference protocols is a valid evidentiary limitation, and the absence of a no-auxiliary baseline weakens the causal phrasing in the conclusion; however, a confound is not circularity. The central content of the review is self-contained in the sense that it compiles and compares external benchmark numbers, and the self-citations do not carry the argument. Score 0 accordingly.

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

The review introduces no free parameters or invented physical entities. It relies on assumptions about the representativeness of the 81 selected papers, the accuracy of their self-reported metrics, the validity of comparing those metrics across different experimental setups, and the meaningfulness of the auxiliary-information taxonomy.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The 81 reviewed papers are representative of the field of T2V retrieval with auxiliary information.
    The selection criteria for papers are not specified beyond the use of auxiliary information. The survey may omit relevant works, which would bias its conclusions about which auxiliary-information types are promising.
  • domain assumption Reported metrics from the original papers are accurate and mutually consistent.
    The comparison tables rely entirely on numbers claimed by the original papers. Any errors or inconsistent experimental protocols in the source papers carry over into the survey's findings.
  • ad hoc to paper Auxiliary information type is a meaningful axis for comparing method performance.
    The entire taxonomy assumes that differences in auxiliary information, rather than architecture or scale, explain performance differences. This is not established and is, in fact, a key weakness of the comparative analysis.
  • domain assumption Excluding methods that do not report R@1 (VATT, LINAS) or that report only averaged metrics (HierVL, EgoInstructor) does not bias the quantitative conclusions.
    The stated reason is consistency, but the omission may systematically remove weaker or stronger methods, potentially skewing the rankings per dataset.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Leveraging Auxiliary Information in Text-to-Video Retrieval: A Review." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QMT57ARQ

@misc{pith2026250523952,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Leveraging Auxiliary Information in Text-to-Video Retrieval: A Review},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QMT57ARQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23952}
}
read the original abstract

Text-to-Video (T2V) retrieval aims to identify the most relevant item from a gallery of videos based on a user's text query. Traditional methods rely solely on aligning video and text modalities to compute the similarity and retrieve relevant items. However, recent advancements emphasise incorporating auxiliary information extracted from video and text modalities to improve retrieval performance and bridge the semantic gap between these modalities. Auxiliary information can include visual attributes, such as objects; temporal and spatial context; and textual descriptions, such as speech and rephrased captions. This survey comprehensively reviews 81 research papers on Text-to-Video retrieval that utilise such auxiliary information. It provides a detailed analysis of their methodologies; highlights state-of-the-art results on benchmark datasets; and discusses available datasets and their auxiliary information. Additionally, it proposes promising directions for future research, focusing on different ways to further enhance retrieval performance using this information.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23952 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of different auxiliary information extracted from video ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Performance comparison of Zero-Shot models on MSR-VTT across different types of auxiliary in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance comparison of Fine-Tuned models on MSR-VTT across different types of auxiliary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance comparison of Zero-Shot/Fine-Tuned models on MSVD across different types of auxiliary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance comparison of Zero-Shot/Fine-Tuned models on ActivityNet Captions (left) and DiDeMo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance comparison of Zero-Shot/Fine-Tuned models on LSMDC (left) and YouCook2 (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Performance comparison of Zero-Shot/Fine-Tuned models on VATEX (left) and EPIC-KITCHENS-100 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.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. Prompting-MammAlps: Fine-Grained Text-to-Video Retrieval for Camera-Trap Data

    cs.CV 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    A camera-trap TVR benchmark of 135 ethology queries plus an interpretable SALMA-to-JSON plus constrained-LLM-parser pipeline yields 34% set F1, beating zero-shot VLMs at 18%.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Hassan Akbari, Liangzhe Yuan, Rui Qian, Wei-Hong Chuang, Shih-Fu Chang, Yin Cui, and Boqing Gong. 2021. VATT: Transformers for Multimodal Self-Supervised Learning from Raw Video, Audio and Text. InConference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

    2021

  2. [2]

    Kumar Ashutosh, Rohit Girdhar, Lorenzo Torresani, and Kristen Grauman. 2023. HierVL: Learning Hierarchical Video-Language Embeddings. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2023

  3. [3]

    Zechen Bai, Tianjun Xiao, Tong He, Pichao Wang, Zheng Zhang, Thomas Brox, and Mike Zheng Shou. 2025. Bridging Information Asymmetry in Text-video Retrieval: A Data-centric Approach. arXiv (2025). Accepted at ICLR 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    Min Cao, Shiping Li, Juntao Li, Liqiang Nie, and Min Zhang. 2022. Image-text Retrieval: A Survey on Recent Research and Development. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI)

    2022

  5. [5]

    Boggust, Rameswar Panda, Brian Kingsbury, Rogério Feris, David Harwath, James R

    Brian Chen, Andrew Rouditchenko, Kevin Duarte, Hilde Kuehne, Samuel Thomas, Angie W. Boggust, Rameswar Panda, Brian Kingsbury, Rogério Feris, David Harwath, James R. Glass, Michael Picheny, and Shih-Fu Chang. 2021. Multimodal Clustering Networks for Self-supervised Learning from Unlabeled Videos. In International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    2021

  6. [6]

    Chen and William B

    David L. Chen and William B. Dolan. 2011. Collecting Highly Parallel Data for Paraphrase Evaluation. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)

    2011

  7. [7]

    Lei Chen, Zhen Deng, Libo Liu, and Shibai Yin. 2024. Multilevel Semantic Interaction Alignment for Video–Text Cross-Modal Retrieval. Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology (TCSVT) (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    Sihan Chen, Handong Li, Qunbo Wang, Zijia Zhao, Mingzhen Sun, Xinxin Zhu, and Jing Liu. 2023. VAST: A Vision- Audio-Subtitle-Text Omni-Modality Foundation Model and Dataset. In Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS

    2023

Show all 120 references
  1. [9]

    Shizhe Chen, Yida Zhao, Qin Jin, and Qi Wu. 2020. Fine-Grained Video-Text Retrieval With Hierarchical Graph Reasoning. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Yizhen Chen, Jie Wang, Lijian Lin, Zhongang Qi, Jin Ma, and Ying Shan. 2023. Tagging before Alignment: Integrating Multi-Modal Tags for Video-Text Retrieval. InConference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Xing Cheng, Hezheng Lin, Xiangyu Wu, Fan Yang, and Dong Shen. 2021. Improving Video-Text Retrieval by Multi-Stream Corpus Alignment and Dual Softmax Loss. CoRR abs/2109.04290 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Zesen Cheng, Sicong Leng, Hang Zhang, Yifei Xin, Xin Li, Guanzheng Chen, Yongxin Zhu, Wenqi Zhang, Ziyang Luo, Deli Zhao, et al. 2024. VideoLLaMA 2: Advancing Spatial-Temporal Modeling and Audio Understanding in , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: August 2025. 24 Frag...

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P

    Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P. Xing. 2023. Vicuna: An Open-Source Chatbot Impressing GPT-4 with 90%* ChatGPT Quality. https://lmsys.org/blog/2023-...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Giordano Cicchetti, Eleonora Grassucci, Luigi Sigillo, and Danilo Comminiello. 2025. Gramian Multimodal Represen- tation Learning and Alignment. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2025

  7. [15]

    Begum Citamak, Ozan Caglayan, Menekse Kuyu, Erkut Erdem, Aykut Erdem, Pranava Madhyastha, and Lucia Specia

  8. [16]

    Ioana Croitoru, Simion-Vlad Bogolin, Marius Leordeanu, Hailin Jin, Andrew Zisserman, Samuel Albanie, and Yang Liu. 2021. TeachText: CrossModal Generalized Distillation for Text-Video Retrieval. InInternational Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Dima Damen, Hazel Doughty, Giovanni Maria Farinella, Sanja Fidler, Antonino Furnari, Evangelos Kazakos, Davide Moltisanti, Jonathan Munro, Toby Perrett, Will Price, and Michael Wray. 2018. Scaling Egocentric Vision: The EPIC-KITCHENS Dataset. In European Conference on Computer...

    2018

  10. [18]

    Jianfeng Dong, Xirong Li, Chaoxi Xu, Xun Yang, Gang Yang, Xun Wang, and Meng Wang. 2022. Dual Encoding for Video Retrieval by Text. Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (TPAMI) (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Xingning Dong, Zipeng Feng, Chunluan Zhou, Xuzheng Yu, Ming Yang, and Qingpei Guo. 2024. M2-RAAP: A Multi- Modal Recipe for Advancing Adaptation-based Pre-training towards Effective and Efficient Zero-shot Video-text Retrieval. In Conference on Research and Development in Info...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. CoRR abs/2407.21783 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Maksim Dzabraev, Maksim Kalashnikov, Stepan Komkov, and Aleksandr Petiushko. 2021. MDMMT: Multidomain Multimodal Transformer for Video Retrieval. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Sheng Fang, Shuhui Wang, Junbao Zhuo, Xinzhe Han, and Qingming Huang. 2022. Learning Linguistic Association Towards Efficient Text-Video Retrieval. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Zerun Feng, Zhimin Zeng, Caili Guo, and Zheng Li. 2020. Exploiting Visual Semantic Reasoning for Video-Text Retrieval. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Adriano Fragomeni, Michael Wray, and Dima Damen. 2022. ConTra: (Con)text (Tra)nsformer for Cross-Modal Video Retrieval. In Asian Conference on Computer Vision (ACCV)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Valentin Gabeur, Arsha Nagrani, Chen Sun, Karteek Alahari, and Cordelia Schmid. 2022. Masking Modalities for Cross-modal Video Retrieval. In Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (W ACV)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Valentin Gabeur, Chen Sun, Karteek Alahari, and Cordelia Schmid. 2020. Multi-modal Transformer for Video Retrieval. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Damianos Galanopoulos and Vasileios Mezaris. 2022. Are All Combinations Equal? Combining Textual and Visual Features with Multiple Space Learning for Text-Based Video Retrieval. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Yuying Ge, Yixiao Ge, Xihui Liu, Dian Li, Ying Shan, Xiaohu Qie, and Ping Luo. 2022. Bridging Video-text Retrieval with Multiple Choice Questions. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Simon Ging, Mohammadreza Zolfaghari, Hamed Pirsiavash, and Thomas Brox. 2020. COOT: Cooperative Hierarchical Transformer for Video-Text Representation Learning. InConference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Rohit Girdhar, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, Zhuang Liu, Mannat Singh, Kalyan Vasudev Alwala, Armand Joulin, and Ishan Misra. 2023. ImageBind One Embedding Space to Bind Them All. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Satya Krishna Gorti, Noël Vouitsis, Junwei Ma, Keyvan Golestan, Maksims Volkovs, Animesh Garg, and Guangwei Yu. 2022. X-Pool: Cross-Modal Language-Video Attention for Text-Video Retrieval. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Kristen Grauman, Andrew Westbury, Eugene Byrne, Zachary Chavis, Antonino Furnari, Rohit Girdhar, Jackson Hamburger, Hao Jiang, Miao Liu, Xingyu Liu, Miguel Martin, Tushar Nagarajan, Ilija Radosavovic, Santhosh Kumar Ramakrishnan, Fiona Ryan, Jayant Sharma, Michael Wray, Mengme...

    2025

  25. [33]

    Donghoon Han, Eunhwan Park, Gisang Lee, Adam Lee, and Nojun Kwak. 2024. MERLIN: Multimodal Embedding Refinement via LLM-based Iterative Navigation for Text-Video Retrieval-Rerank Pipeline. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Ning Han, Jingjing Chen, Guangyi Xiao, Hao Zhang, Yawen Zeng, and Hao Chen. 2021. Fine-grained Cross-modal Alignment Network for Text-Video Retrieval. In Multimedia Conference (MC)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Ning Han, Yawen Zeng, Chuhao Shi, Guangyi Xiao, Hao Chen, and Jingjing Chen. 2024. BiC-Net: Learning Efficient Spatio-temporal Relation for Text-Video Retrieval. Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM) (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Zhichao Han, Azreen Azman, Mas Rina Mustaffa, and Fatimah Khalid. 2024. Cross-Modal Retrieval: A Review of Methodologies, Datasets, and Future Perspectives. IEEE Access (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Xiaoshuai Hao, Yucan Zhou, Dayan Wu, Wanqian Zhang, Bo Li, and Weiping Wang. 2021. Multi-Feature Graph Attention Network for Cross-Modal Video-Text Retrieval. InInternational Conference on Multimedia Retrieval (ICMR)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Xiaoshuai Hao, Yucan Zhou, Dayan Wu, Wanqian Zhang, Bo Li, Weiping Wang, and Dan Meng. 2021. What Matters: Attentive and Relational Feature Aggregation Network for Video-Text Retrieval. In International Conference on Multimedia & Expo (ICME)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Feng He, Qi Wang, Zhifan Feng, Wenbin Jiang, Yajuan Lü, Yong Zhu, and Xiao Tan. 2021. Improving Video Retrieval by Adaptive Margin. In Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Willy Fitra Hendria. 2023. MSVD-Indonesian: A Benchmark for Multimodal Video-Text Tasks in Indonesian. CoRR abs/2306.11341 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Lisa Anne Hendricks, Oliver Wang, Eli Shechtman, Josef Sivic, Trevor Darrell, and Bryan C. Russell. 2017. Localizing Moments in Video with Natural Language. In International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    2017

  34. [42]

    Fan Hu, Aozhu Chen, Ziyue Wang, Fangming Zhou, Jianfeng Dong, and Xirong Li. 2022. Lightweight Attentional Feature Fusion: A New Baseline for Text-to-Video Retrieval. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Poyao Huang, Mandela Patrick, Junjie Hu, Graham Neubig, Florian Metze, and Alex Hauptmann. 2021. Multilingual Multimodal Pre-training for Zero-Shot Cross-Lingual Transfer of Vision-Language Models. In Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computationa...

    2021

  36. [44]

    Sarah Ibrahimi, Xiaohang Sun, Pichao Wang, Amanmeet Garg, Ashutosh Sanan, and Mohamed Omar. 2023. Audio- Enhanced Text-to-Video Retrieval using Text-Conditioned Feature Alignment. InInternational Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Weike Jin, Zhou Zhao, Pengcheng Zhang, Jieming Zhu, Xiuqiang He, and Yueting Zhuang. 2021. Hierarchical Cross-Modal Graph Consistency Learning for Video-Text Retrieval. InConference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Parminder Kaur, Husanbir Singh Pannu, and Avleen Kaur Malhi. 2021. Comparative analysis on cross-modal information retrieval: A review. Computer Science Review (CSR) (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    Ranjay Krishna, Kenji Hata, Frederic Ren, Li Fei-Fei, and Juan Carlos Niebles. 2017. Dense-Captioning Events in Videos. In International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    2017

  40. [48]

    Alexander Kunitsyn, Maksim Kalashnikov, Maksim Dzabraev, and Andrei Ivaniuta. 2022. MDMMT-2: Multidomain Multimodal Transformer for Video Retrieval, One More Step Towards Generalization. CoRR abs/2203.07086 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Huy Le, Tung Kieu, Anh Nguyen, and Ngan Le. 2024. WAVER: Writing-Style Agnostic Text-Video Retrieval Via Distilling Vision-Language Models Through Open-Vocabulary Knowledge. In International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Dongxu Li, Junnan Li, Hongdong Li, Juan Carlos Niebles, and Steven C. H. Hoi. 2022. Align and Prompt: Video-and- Language Pre-training with Entity Prompts. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. 2023. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

    2023

  44. [52]

    Tieying Li, Lingdu Kong, Xiaochun Yang, Bin Wang, and Jiaxing Xu. 2024. Bridging Modalities: A Survey of Cross-Modal Image-Text Retrieval. Chinese Journal of Information Fusion (CJIF) (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Xirong Li, Fangming Zhou, Chaoxi Xu, Jiaqi Ji, and Gang Yang. 2021. SEA: Sentence Encoder Assembly for Video Retrieval by Textual Queries. Transactions on Multimedia (TM) (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Yili Li, Jing Yu, Keke Gai, Bang Liu, Gang Xiong, and Qi Wu. 2024. T2VIndexer: A Generative Video Indexer for Efficient Text-Video Retrieval. In International Conference on Multimedia (ICM)

    2024

  47. [55]

    Kaiqu Liang and Samuel Albanie. 2023. Simple Baselines for Interactive Video Retrieval with Questions and Answers. In International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) . , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: August 2025. 26 Fragomeni et al

    2023

  48. [56]

    Kevin Qinghong Lin, Jinpeng Wang, Mattia Soldan, Michael Wray, Rui Yan, Eric Zhongcong Xu, Difei Gao, Rong- Cheng Tu, Wenzhe Zhao, Weijie Kong, Chengfei Cai, Hongfa Wang, Dima Damen, Bernard Ghanem, Wei Liu, and Mike Zheng Shou. 2022. Egocentric Video-Language Pretraining. In ...

    2022

  49. [57]

    Yan-Bo Lin, Jie Lei, Mohit Bansal, and Gedas Bertasius. 2022. EclipSE: Efficient Long-Range Video Retrieval Using Sight and Sound. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    2022

  50. [58]

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. 2023. Visual Instruction Tuning. In Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

    2023

  51. [59]

    Song Liu, Haoqi Fan, Shengsheng Qian, Yiru Chen, Wenkui Ding, and Zhongyuan Wang. 2021. HiT: Hierarchical Transformer with Momentum Contrast for Video-Text Retrieval. In International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    2021

  52. [60]

    Yang Liu, Samuel Albanie, Arsha Nagrani, and Andrew Zisserman. 2019. Use What You Have: Video retrieval using representations from collaborative experts. In British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC)

    2019

  53. [61]

    Gang Lv, Yining Sun, and Fudong Nian. 2024. Video-text retrieval via multi-modal masked transformer and adaptive attribute-aware graph convolutional network. Multim. Syst. (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    Rawat, and Thomas B

    Neelu Madan, Andreas Møgelmose, Rajat Modi, Yogesh S. Rawat, and Thomas B. Moeslund. 2024. Foundation Models for Video Understanding: A Survey. CoRR abs/2405.03770 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Avinash Madasu, Estelle Aflalo, Gabriela Ben Melech Stan, Shachar Rosenman, Shao-Yen Tseng, Gedas Bertasius, and Vasudev Lal. 2023. MuMUR: Multilingual Multimodal Universal Retrieval. Inf. Retr. J. (2023)

    2023

  56. [64]

    Antoine Miech, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Lucas Smaira, Ivan Laptev, Josef Sivic, and Andrew Zisserman. 2020. End-to- End Learning of Visual Representations From Uncurated Instructional Videos. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2020

  57. [65]

    Antoine Miech, Ivan Laptev, and Josef Sivic. 2018. Learning a Text-Video Embedding from Incomplete and Heteroge- neous Data. CoRR abs/1804.02516 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Antoine Miech, Dimitri Zhukov, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Makarand Tapaswi, Ivan Laptev, and Josef Sivic. 2019. HowTo100M: Learning a Text-Video Embedding by Watching Hundred Million Narrated Video Clips. InInternational Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    2019

  59. [67]

    Arsha Nagrani, Paul Hongsuck Seo, Bryan Seybold, Anja Hauth, Santiago Manen, Chen Sun, and Cordelia Schmid

  60. [68]

    Thong Nguyen, Yi Bin, Junbin Xiao, Leigang Qu, Yicong Li, Jay Zhangjie Wu, Cong-Duy Nguyen, See-Kiong Ng, and Anh Tuan Luu. 2024. Video-Language Understanding: A Survey from Model Architecture, Model Training, and Data Perspectives. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Com...

    2024

  61. [69]

    B. V. Patel and B. B. Meshram. 2012. Content based video retrieval systems. CoRR abs/1205.1641 (2012)

    2012 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Hauptmann, João F

    Mandela Patrick, Po-Yao Huang, Yuki Markus Asano, Florian Metze, Alexander G. Hauptmann, João F. Henriques, and Andrea Vedaldi. 2021. Support-set bottlenecks for video-text representation learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2021

  63. [71]

    Yuxin Peng, Xin Huang, and Yunzhen Zhao. 2018. An Overview of Cross-Media Retrieval: Concepts, Methodologies, Benchmarks, and Challenges. Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology (TCSVT) (2018)

    2018

  64. [72]

    Anna Rohrbach, Marcus Rohrbach, Niket Tandon, and Bernt Schiele. 2015. A dataset for Movie Description. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2015

  65. [73]

    Andrew Rouditchenko, Angie W. Boggust, David Harwath, Brian Chen, Dhiraj Joshi, Samuel Thomas, Kartik Au- dhkhasi, Hilde Kuehne, Rameswar Panda, Rogério Schmidt Feris, Brian Kingsbury, Michael Picheny, Antonio Torralba, and James R. Glass. 2021. AVLnet: Learning Audio-Visual L...

    2021

  66. [74]

    Andrew Rouditchenko, Yung-Sung Chuang, Nina Shvetsova, Samuel Thomas, Rogério Feris, Brian Kingsbury, Leonid Karlinsky, David Harwath, Hilde Kuehne, and James R. Glass. 2023. C2KD: Cross-Lingual Cross-Modal Knowledge Distillation for Multilingual Text-Video Retrieval. InIntern...

    2023

  67. [75]

    Glass, and Hilde Kuehne

    Nina Shvetsova, Brian Chen, Andrew Rouditchenko, Samuel Thomas, Brian Kingsbury, Rogério Feris, David Harwath, James R. Glass, and Hilde Kuehne. 2022. Everything at Once - Multi-modal Fusion Transformer for Video Retrieval. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognit...

    2022

  68. [76]

    Nina Shvetsova, Anna Kukleva, Xudong Hong, Christian Rupprecht, Bernt Schiele, and Hilde Kuehne. 2024. How- ToCaption: Prompting LLMs to Transform Video Annotations at Scale. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    2024

  69. [77]

    Nina Shvetsova, Anna Kukleva, Bernt Schiele, and Hilde Kuehne. 2023. In-Style: Bridging Text and Uncurated Videos with Style Transfer for Text-Video Retrieval. In International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) . , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: August 2025. Lev...

    2023

  70. [78]

    Xue Song, Jingjing Chen, and Yu-Gang Jiang. 2023. Relation Triplet Construction for Cross-modal Text-to-Video Retrieval. In International Conference on Multimedia (ICM)

    2023

  71. [79]

    Xue Song, Jingjing Chen, Zuxuan Wu, and Yu-Gang Jiang. 2022. Spatial-Temporal Graphs for Cross-Modal Text2Video Retrieval. Transactions on Multimedia (TM) (2022)

    2022

  72. [80]

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. CoRR abs/2302.13971 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  73. [81]

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

    2023 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Alex Jinpeng Wang, Yixiao Ge, Guanyu Cai, Rui Yan, Xudong Lin, Ying Shan, Xiaohu Qie, and Mike Zheng Shou. 2022. Object-aware Video-language Pre-training for Retrieval. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2022

  75. [83]

    Haoran Wang, Di Xu, Dongliang He, Fu Li, Zhong Ji, Jungong Han, and Errui Ding. 2022. Boosting Video-Text Retrieval with Explicit High-Level Semantics. In International Conference on Multimedia (ICM)

    2022

  76. [84]

    Jinpeng Wang, Bin Chen, Dongliang Liao, Ziyun Zeng, Gongfu Li, Shu-Tao Xia, and Jin Xu. 2022. Hybrid Contrastive Quantization for Efficient Cross-View Video Retrieval. In Web Conference (WWW)

    2022

  77. [85]

    Kaiye Wang, Qiyue Yin, Wei Wang, Shu Wu, and Liang Wang. 2016. A Comprehensive Survey on Cross-modal Retrieval. CoRR abs/1607.06215 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Wei Wang, Junyu Gao, Xiaoshan Yang, and Changsheng Xu. 2021. Learning Coarse-to-Fine Graph Neural Networks for Video-Text Retrieval. Transactions on Multimedia (TM) (2021)

    2021

  79. [87]

    Wenzhe Wang, Mengdan Zhang, Runnan Chen, Guanyu Cai, Penghao Zhou, Pai Peng, Xiaowei Guo, Jian Wu, and Xing Sun. 2021. Dig into Multi-modal Cues for Video Retrieval with Hierarchical Alignment. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI)

    2021

  80. [88]

    Xin Wang, Jiawei Wu, Junkun Chen, Lei Li, Yuan-Fang Wang, and William Yang Wang. 2019. VaTeX: A Large-Scale, High-Quality Multilingual Dataset for Video-and-Language Research. In International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    2019

  81. [89]

    Xiaohan Wang, Linchao Zhu, and Yi Yang. 2021. T2VLAD: Global-Local Sequence Alignment for Text-Video Retrieval. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2021

  82. [90]

    Yi Wang, Kunchang Li, Xinhao Li, Jiashuo Yu, Yinan He, Guo Chen, Baoqi Pei, Rongkun Zheng, Zun Wang, Yansong Shi, Tianxiang Jiang, Songze Li, Jilan Xu, Hongjie Zhang, Yifei Huang, Yu Qiao, Yali Wang, and Limin Wang. 2024. InternVideo2: Scaling Foundation Models for Multimodal ...

    2024

  83. [91]

    Ziyue Wang, Aozhu Chen, Fan Hu, and Xirong Li. 2022. Learn to Understand Negation in Video Retrieval. In International Conference on Multimedia (ICM)

    2022

  84. [92]

    Zeyu Wang, Yu Wu, Karthik Narasimhan, and Olga Russakovsky. 2022. Multi-query Video Retrieval. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    2022

  85. [93]

    Michael Wray, Gabriela Csurka, Diane Larlus, and Dima Damen. 2019. Fine-Grained Action Retrieval Through Multiple Parts-of-Speech Embeddings. In International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    2019

  86. [94]

    Peng Wu, Xiangteng He, Mingqian Tang, Yiliang Lv, and Jing Liu. 2021. HANet: Hierarchical Alignment Networks for Video-Text Retrieval. In Multimedia Conference (MC)

    2021

  87. [95]

    Wenhao Wu, Haipeng Luo, Bo Fang, Jingdong Wang, and Wanli Ouyang. 2023. Cap4Video: What Can Auxiliary Captions Do for Text-Video Retrieval?. InConference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2023

  88. [96]

    Xiaoyu Wu, Jiayao Qian, and Tiantian Wang. 2023. Text-video retrieval method based on enhanced self-attention and multi-task learning. Multimedia Tools and Applications (MTA) (2023)

    2023

  89. [97]

    Boshen Xu, Ziheng Wang, Yang Du, Zhinan Song, Sipeng Zheng, and Qin Jin. 2025. Do Egocentric Video-Language Models Truly Understand Hand-Object Interactions?. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2025

  90. [98]

    Jilan Xu, Yifei Huang, Junlin Hou, Guo Chen, Yuejie Zhang, Rui Feng, and Weidi Xie. 2024. Retrieval-Augmented Egocentric Video Captioning. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2024

  91. [99]

    Jun Xu, Tao Mei, Ting Yao, and Yong Rui. 2016. MSR-VTT: A Large Video Description Dataset for Bridging Video and Language. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2016

  92. [100]

    Ran Xu, Caiming Xiong, Wei Chen, and Jason J. Corso. 2015. Jointly Modeling Deep Video and Compositional Text to Bridge Vision and Language in a Unified Framework. In Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)

    2015

  93. [101]

    Hongwei Xue, Yuchong Sun, Bei Liu, Jianlong Fu, Ruihua Song, Houqiang Li, and Jiebo Luo. 2023. CLIP-ViP: Adapting Pre-trained Image-Text Model to Video-Language Alignment. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication da...

    2023

  94. [102]

    Jianwei Yang, Yonatan Bisk, and Jianfeng Gao. 2021. TACo: Token-aware Cascade Contrastive Learning for Video-Text Alignment. In International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    2021

  95. [103]

    Xun Yang, Jianfeng Dong, Yixin Cao, Xun Wang, Meng Wang, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2020. Tree-Augmented Cross-Modal Encoding for Complex-Query Video Retrieval. In Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR)

    2020

  96. [104]

    Xuzheng Yu, Chen Jiang, Xingning Dong, Tian Gan, Ming Yang, and Qingpei Guo. 2024. SHE-Net: Syntax-Hierarchy- Enhanced Text-Video Retrieval. CoRR abs/2404.14066 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Youngjae Yu, Jongseok Kim, and Gunhee Kim. 2018. A Joint Sequence Fusion Model for Video Question Answering and Retrieval. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    2018

  98. [106]

    Youngjae Yu, Hyungjin Ko, Jongwook Choi, and Gunhee Kim. 2017. End-to-End Concept Word Detection for Video Captioning, Retrieval, and Question Answering. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2017

  99. [107]

    Bowen Zhang, Hexiang Hu, and Fei Sha. 2018. Cross-Modal and Hierarchical Modeling of Video and Text. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    2018

  100. [108]

    Chuhan Zhang, Ankush Gupta, and Andrew Zisserman. 2023. Helping Hands: An Object-Aware Ego-Centric Video Recognition Model. In International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    2023

  101. [110]

    Hang Zhang, Xin Li, and Lidong Bing. 2023. Video-LLaMA: An Instruction-tuned Audio-Visual Language Model for Video Understanding. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)

    2023

  102. [111]

    Yue Zhao, Ishan Misra, Philipp Krähenbühl, and Rohit Girdhar. 2023. Learning Video Representations from Large Language Models. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2023

  103. [112]

    Yue Zhao, Long Zhao, Xingyi Zhou, Jialin Wu, Chun-Te Chu, Hui Miao, Florian Schroff, Hartwig Adam, Ting Liu, Boqing Gong, Philipp Krähenbühl, and Liangzhe Yuan. 2024. Distilling Vision-Language Models on Millions of Videos. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognit...

    2024

  104. [113]

    Kun Zhou, Fadratul Hafinaz Hassan, and Gan Keng Hoon. 2023. The State of the Art for Cross-Modal Retrieval: A Survey. IEEE Access (2023)

    2023

  105. [114]

    Luowei Zhou, Chenliang Xu, and Jason J. Corso. 2018. Towards Automatic Learning of Procedures From Web Instructional Videos. In Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI)

    2018

  106. [115]

    Bin Zhu, Bin Lin, Munan Ning, Yang Yan, Jiaxi Cui, Hongfa Wang, Yatian Pang, Wenhao Jiang, Junwu Zhang, Zongwei Li, Caiwan Zhang, Zhifeng Li, Wei Liu, and Li Yuan. 2024. LanguageBind: Extending Video-Language Pretraining to N-modality by Language-based Semantic Alignment. In I...

    2024

  107. [116]

    Cunjuan Zhu, Qi Jia, Wei Chen, Yanming Guo, and Yu Liu. 2023. Deep learning for video-text retrieval: a review. International Journal of Multimedia Information Retrieval (IJMIR) (2023)

    2023

  108. [117]

    Lei Zhu, Tianshi Wang, Fengling Li, Jingjing Li, Zheng Zhang, and Heng Tao Shen. 2023. Cross-Modal Retrieval: A Systematic Review of Methods and Future Directions. CoRR abs/2308.14263 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  109. [118]

    Linchao Zhu and Yi Yang. 2020. ActBERT: Learning Global-Local Video-Text Representations. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2020

  110. [119]

    Lei Zhu, Chaoqun Zheng, Weili Guan, Jingjing Li, Yang Yang, and Heng Tao Shen. 2024. Multi-Modal Hashing for Efficient Multimedia Retrieval: A Survey. Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (TKDE) (2024). , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: August 2025. Levera...

    2024

  111. [2021]

    Machine Translation (MT) (2021)

    MSVD-Turkish: a comprehensive multimodal video dataset for integrated vision and language research in Turkish. Machine Translation (MT) (2021)

    2021

  112. [2022]

    In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    Learning Audio-Video Modalities from Image Captions. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.