Temporal Contrastive Learning for Video Temporal Reasoning in Large Vision-Language Models

Alexander Davis; Jia-Hao Lim; Rafael Souza

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Temporal Contrastive Learning for Video Temporal Reasoning in Large Vision-Language Models

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read TSADP claims dynamic prompts and temporal contrastive learning give video-language models fine-grained temporal reasoning, beating four baselines on VidSitu.

desk verdict The paper's central claim collapses on its own training objective: Eq. (7) has no language-modeling loss, yet the method is scored on generated text descriptions. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11391 v1 pith:AUM3OASA submitted 2024-12-16 cs.CV

Rafael Souza , Jia-Hao Lim , Alexander Davis This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords temporalreasoningvideo-languageunderstandingcontrastivelearningdynamicpromptinglargevision-languagemodelsVidSitumaskedprediction

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

The paper proposes a training recipe, Temporal Semantic Alignment via Dynamic Prompting (TSADP), for making vision-language models reason about time. The recipe has three pieces: a Dynamic Prompt Generator (DPG) that builds per-frame prompts from a sliding temporal window, a Temporal Contrastive Loss (TCL) that pulls visual and textual embeddings of the same moment together and pushes different moments apart, and a Masked Temporal Prediction (MTP) objective that makes the model robust to missing frames. The authors evaluate TSADP on an augmented VidSitu benchmark and report that it outperforms CLIP, CLIP-ViP, Video-LLaVA, and EVA-CLIP on Intra-Video Entity Association, Temporal Relationship Understanding, and Chronology Prediction, and that human annotators rate its descriptions higher on coherence, temporal alignment, and semantic accuracy. The point of the paper is that temporal reasoning can be taught to existing large vision-language models with these lightweight components rather than with heavy temporal attention or recurrent architectures.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a combination of three trainable pieces. The DPG is a multi-head self-attention module over a temporal window of $2k+1$ frames around each frame $v_t$, producing a prompt $P_t = \text{DPG}(v_t, \{v_{t-k},\dots,v_t,\dots,v_{t+k}\})$ that is injected into the language generation process. TCL is a cross-modal softmax contrastive loss over projected visual and textual embeddings, so that same-time embeddings have high cosine similarity and different-time embeddings are pushed apart. MTP masks some frame features and predicts their embeddings from context with an $\ell^2$ loss. The final training objective is $L = \lambda_1 \mathcal{L}_{\text{contrastive}} + \lambda_2 \mathcal{L}_{\text{mask}}$, and the argument hinges on the interaction of these terms: the ablation study shows that removing DPG drops IVEA from 85.7% to 78.4%, and removing TCL degrades TRU and chronology MAE, which is presented as evidence that each component carries part of the temporal reasoning ability.

What would settle it

Inspect or reproduce the training loop: if the only loss terms are $\lambda_1 \mathcal{L}_{\text{contrastive}} + \lambda_2 \mathcal{L}_{\text{mask}}$, and no gradient flows from the generated text to the decoder, then the described procedure cannot learn to produce temporally coherent captions. A minimal experiment is to train with Eq. (7) exactly and measure whether task accuracy and caption quality improve at all; if the caption outputs do not change or deteriorate while the contrastive and masked losses improve, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a model trained with the joint objective $L = \lambda_1 \mathcal{L}_{\text{contrastive}} + \lambda_2 \mathcal{L}_{\text{mask}}$ learns temporal semantics that transfer to downstream video-language tasks. Concretely, TSADP reaches 85.7% accuracy on Intra-Video Entity Association, 78.9% on Temporal Relationship Understanding, and 2.8 frames mean absolute error on Chronology Prediction, beating the best baseline EVA-CLIP by 6.1 points, 6.1 points, and 0.6 frames respectively, and the human evaluation gives TSADP 4.7, 4.5, and 4.6 out of 5 for coherence, temporal alignment, and semantic accuracy. The author would state it as: dynamic task-specific prompts plus time-contrastive alignment is a sufficient and efficient way to give large vision-language models fine-grained temporal understanding.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the objective in Eq. (7), which contains only contrastive and masked-prediction losses, actually trains the textual descriptions that the three tasks and the human evaluation score; the paper never specifies a language-modeling or generation loss, so if the model's text outputs are not supervised, the reported gains and human scores have no training signal to come from.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the recipe is correct, the same DPG plus TCL plus MTP combination should transfer to other video-language backbones beyond the four tested, giving a generic plug-in for temporal reasoning.
The three proposed tasks and the augmented VidSitu annotations would become a practical evaluation suite for fine-grained temporal understanding in future video-LLM training.
Temporal understanding would not require heavy recurrent layers or excessive temporal attention; the paper reports runtime per frame comparable to CLIP-ViP and faster than Video-LLaVA, which matters for real-time video analytics and autonomous systems.
Masked temporal prediction would make models robust to occluded or skipped frames, a property that carries over to noisy video streams in deployed settings.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural reading is that a language-modeling term, such as cross-entropy on output caption tokens, is missing from Eq. (7); adding it explicitly would make the framework reproducible and is the most direct way to test the reported gains.
TCL could plausibly be applied as a regularizer on top of existing video-LLMs without the DPG, since the contrastive term only needs frame-level embeddings, so a cheap experiment could isolate where the improvement actually comes from.
The augmented VidSitu annotations and task splits are not presented as a released public benchmark, so publishing them with exact prompts would let other groups verify the claimed margins and the human-evaluation protocol.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know before reading: the reported gains are not anchored to a training signal that can produce the text they score. Section III-D defines the total loss as L = λ1·L_contrastive + λ2·L_mask (Eq. 7). L_contrastive aligns visual and language embeddings; L_mask is L2 regression on masked visual embeddings. Neither term trains a text decoder, and no cross-entropy or generation loss appears anywhere in the paper. Section III-E says the DPG prompts 'inform the language generation process,' but the decoder is never specified as trainable or frozen. That is a load-bearing gap: Table III and the human preference scores depend on generated descriptions that Eq. (7) cannot train. It is not a stylistic quibble; the method as written has no path from loss to the evaluated output.

What the paper does well is narrow but real: the assembly of dynamic prompting via windowed self-attention (Eqs. 1–3), InfoNCE-style temporal contrast (Eq. 5), and masked prediction (Eq. 6) is clearly described. The ablation in Table I is consistent with the authors' intuition that both DPG and TCL matter. The writing is mostly readable, and the math is explicit enough to check.

The soft spots extend beyond the missing loss. The evaluation tasks (IVEA, TRU, CP) are author-defined on an unpublished 'enriched' VidSitu; no code, data, or training configuration is released; no error bars, run counts, or significance tests appear; the 'Average Score' column in Table II matches no obvious formula. The reference list includes an unrelated neuroscience paper (Ref. [22], Hermes et al., Cerebral Cortex 2017) cited for long-range video memory, and the EVA-CLIP baseline is never cited. These are mechanical signs of a rushed draft, but they are secondary to the missing generation loss.

My honest read: this is not a paper with a fixable flaw. The core claim—TSADP significantly improves temporal text generation—requires a training objective that is not present in the manuscript. A serious referee could not verify the numbers without code, and the method as written cannot generate the evaluated descriptions. I would desk reject, and I would not bring it to reading group or cite it.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes Temporal Semantic Alignment via Dynamic Prompting (TSADP), a framework for video temporal reasoning that combines a Dynamic Prompt Generator (DPG) with a Temporal Contrastive Loss (TCL) and a Masked Temporal Prediction (MTP) objective. The method is evaluated on a self-described enriched version of VidSitu through three author-defined tasks (IVEA, TRU, CP) and a human evaluation of generated temporal descriptions. The paper claims state-of-the-art accuracy on these tasks and superior human ratings for coherence, temporal alignment, and semantic accuracy.

Significance. If the framework were correctly specified and the evaluations were grounded in public benchmarks and data, the idea of using dynamic task-specific prompts and temporal contrastive learning to improve temporal reasoning in LVLMs would be interesting and potentially useful. The paper also makes a reasonable attempt at ablations (Table I) and at reporting human judgments. However, as it stands, the method's training objective (Eq. 7) contains no term that supervises the generated textual descriptions that are scored in Table III, and the evaluation is built on author-defined tasks and an unreleased dataset extension. These issues are load-bearing, so the paper cannot currently support its central claim of state-of-the-art temporal reasoning. The strengths of the manuscript are the clarity of the three-component idea and the inclusion of ablations; the weaknesses are the missing training signal for text generation and the lack of reproducible evaluation.

major comments (5)

[Section III-D, Eq. (7), and Section III-E] The total training objective in Eq. (7) is L = λ1L_contrastive + λ2L_mask; neither term is a language-modeling objective over generated text. Section III-E nevertheless states that the DPG prompts 'inform the language generation process' and Table III scores free-form temporal descriptions produced by the model. The paper never defines a text-decoder loss, a cross-entropy term, or a frozen pretrained decoder; without one, the gradients from the scored descriptions do not train any parameter that affects the text, and the human-evaluation improvements in Table III have no specified training signal. This is load-bearing: all reported text-generation gains depend on a mechanism that Eq. (7) cannot provide. The authors should either add the missing generation loss to Eq. (7) or explicitly state that the decoder is frozen and explain how the DPG is trained to influence it through the contrastive and masked losses alone.
[Section IV-A, Tables I and II] IVEA, TRU, and CP are introduced in this paper, and the labels come from an 'enriched' version of VidSitu that is not released and whose annotation procedure is not described. The manuscript does not specify train/validation splits, number of videos or instances per task, evaluation prompts, or the protocol used to produce CLIP/CLIP-ViP/Video-LLaVA/EVA-CLIP predictions on these tasks. As a result, the absolute numbers in Tables I and II cannot be reproduced or compared against the literature, and the abstract's 'significant improvements over state-of-the-art models' is not verifiable. A public benchmark, a released annotation extension, or a detailed task description with full evaluation protocols is required.
[Section IV-D, Table III] The human evaluation reports scores for CLIP, CLIP-ViP, and EVA-CLIP, which are not trained to generate free-form textual descriptions; no procedure is described for generating descriptions from these models, nor are the prompts, sampling parameters, annotator instructions, number of annotations, or inter-annotator agreement reported. Under these conditions, the 4.7/4.5/4.6 scores cannot be interpreted as evidence that TSADP generates better temporal narratives than the baselines.
[Section III-C, Eq. (6)] The MTP loss is written as ∑_{t∈Masked} ||ẑ_t − z_t||₂², but z_t is never defined: it is not the input frame feature v_t (which has been masked) and no teacher or ground-truth embedding source is described. The selection rule for the masked subset is also left unspecified. Since Eq. (7) includes L_mask with a fixed weighting, the objective is not implementable as stated.
[Section III-A, Eq. (1)] The dynamic prompt P_t is said to be 'constructed by integrating v̂_t into the model's language generation process', but no equation specifies how P_t conditions the text decoder, how the DPG's prompt tokens are concatenated or added, or how the visual embedding z^v_t in Eq. (5) is obtained from v_t and the DPG output. Together with the first major comment, this leaves the coupling between DPG/TCL and the generated text underspecified to the point that the method cannot be reimplemented from the paper.

minor comments (4)

[References, [22]] Reference [22] (Hermes et al., 'Electrophysiological responses in the ventral temporal cortex during reading of numerals and calculation') is unrelated to the claimed long-form video understanding method TESTA; this appears to be a citation error.
[Section III-B, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) sums the denominator over all t′, including the anchor t; standard contrastive losses exclude the positive from the negative set. The paper should state the negative sampling strategy and the value of τ.
[Section IV-B, Table II] The 'Average Score' column in Table II is not defined; because CP MAE is a lower-is-better error, a raw arithmetic average of accuracy and MAE is not a meaningful aggregate. The authors should specify a normalization or remove the column.
[Section IV-B and IV-E] The text states that TSADP 'significantly outperforms' baselines, but no significance tests, confidence intervals, or standard deviations are reported for any of the quantitative results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; the missing text-generation loss is a specification gap, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The claimed pipeline (DPG prompts + TCL + MTP, Eq. 7) contains no step whose output is defined by the same quantity it claims to predict. Eq. (5) is a standard temporal InfoNCE-style contrastive loss and Eq. (6) is an L2 masked-embedding regression; neither is a fitted constant renamed as a prediction, and neither is derived from the IVEA, TRU, or CP metrics in Table II. The ablation and comparison tables are empirical claims whose protocol is underspecified (author-defined labels on an augmented VidSitu, undisclosed baseline tuning, and no code release), but underspecification is not circularity. The most serious issue is that the paper never defines a language-modeling or generation loss, so the temporally aligned textual descriptions scored in Table III have no specified training signal from Eq. (7); Section III-E asserts that prompts "inform the language generation process" without specifying how the text decoder is trained. That is an internal gap that would invalidate the human-evaluation claim if Eq. (7) is the complete objective, but it is not a case of X being defined in terms of Y or of a fitted parameter being relabeled as a prediction. No load-bearing self-citation chain appears: the cited works are external baselines and related work, not the present authors' prior results invoked to force the choice of TSADP. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

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

The headline results rest on four unreported free-parameter entries (loss weights, temperature, window size, masking scheme), four assumptions, and four invented evaluation constructs. The only unproblematic axiom is the standard attention and InfoNCE machinery. The assumption that Eq. (7) trains text generation is contradicted by the absence of any generation loss; the domain assumptions about annotation quality and baseline fairness are unverifiable because the paper discloses no procedure. The three headline tasks and the augmented labels are constructs of this paper with no external validation.

free parameters (4)

λ1, λ2 (loss weights in Eq. 7) = not reported
Weights balancing contrastive and masked losses; no values or tuning procedure are given, and the balance directly affects the reported results.
τ (temperature in Eq. 5) = not reported
Temperature for the temporal contrastive loss; its value changes the gradient scale and therefore the learned embeddings, but is not stated.
k (temporal window half-size in Eq. 1) = not reported
Defines the 2k+1 frame window used by the Dynamic Prompt Generator; k is never reported.
MTP masking ratio and selection rule = not reported
Section III-C masks "a subset" of temporal features; the proportion and selection rule are unspecified and affect Lmask.

assumptions (4)

ad hoc to paper Eq. (7) specifies the complete training objective, and its two terms suffice to train the model to generate the textual descriptions evaluated in Section IV.
No next-token or generation loss appears in the paper; inference (Section III-E) and Table III require generated text, so either the objective is incomplete or the generative claim is unsupported.
domain assumption The enriched VidSitu annotations are correct, consistent, and aligned with the intended tasks.
Annotation procedure, annotator pool, agreement, and label statistics are absent; every reported score is measured against these unpublished labels.
domain assumption Baselines were evaluated under the same protocol, tasks, and augmented data as TSADP.
No description is given of how CLIP, CLIP-ViP, Video-LLaVA, or EVA-CLIP produce IVEA, TRU, and CP predictions; reported gaps may reflect protocol differences rather than method gains.
standard math Standard multi-head self-attention and InfoNCE-style contrastive behavior hold as written (Eqs. 2-5).
These are textbook mechanisms; the only issues are notational (indices i versus t in Eqs. 2-3) rather than conceptual.

invented entities (4)

IVEA (Intra-Video Entity Association task)
purpose: Headline evaluation task: associating and distinguishing entities within a video; TSADP reports 85.7% accuracy.
Defined only in this paper (Section IV-A) with a one-sentence description; no released task code, label set, or external benchmark, so the score cannot be checked.
TRU (Temporal Relationship Understanding task)
purpose: Headline evaluation task: reasoning about causal and temporal relations between events; TSADP reports 78.9% accuracy.
Defined only in this paper; no external validation or released annotations.
CP (Chronology Prediction task)
purpose: Headline evaluation task: predicting event order; TSADP reports MAE of 2.8 frames.
No scoring procedure, label set, or released code is provided; the frame-level MAE unit is not defined.
Enriched VidSitu temporal annotations
purpose: The augmented labels that all three tasks and the contrastive and masked training objectives depend on.
Section IV-A states the dataset "has been augmented" but gives no annotation procedure, statistics, split, or release; the evaluation ground truth is unpublished and self-created.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Temporal Contrastive Learning for Video Temporal Reasoning in Large Vision-Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AUM3OASA

@misc{pith2026241211391,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Temporal Contrastive Learning for Video Temporal Reasoning in Large Vision-Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AUM3OASA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11391}
}

read the original abstract

Temporal reasoning is a critical challenge in video-language understanding, as it requires models to align semantic concepts consistently across time. While existing large vision-language models (LVLMs) and large language models (LLMs) excel at static tasks, they struggle to capture dynamic interactions and temporal dependencies in video sequences. In this work, we propose Temporal Semantic Alignment via Dynamic Prompting (TSADP), a novel framework that enhances temporal reasoning capabilities through dynamic task-specific prompts and temporal contrastive learning. TSADP leverages a Dynamic Prompt Generator (DPG) to encode fine-grained temporal relationships and a Temporal Contrastive Loss (TCL) to align visual and textual embeddings across time. We evaluate our method on the VidSitu dataset, augmented with enriched temporal annotations, and demonstrate significant improvements over state-of-the-art models in tasks such as Intra-Video Entity Association, Temporal Relationship Understanding, and Chronology Prediction. Human evaluations further confirm TSADP's ability to generate coherent and semantically accurate descriptions. Our analysis highlights the robustness, efficiency, and practical utility of TSADP, making it a step forward in the field of video-language understanding.

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

MARS-RA: Rank Aggregation for Credit Assignment via Multimodal Comparisons in Embodied Multi-Agent Cooperation
cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Credit assignment via LMM pairwise comparisons plus Bradley–Terry rank aggregation and potential-based shaping improves cooperative MARL under sparse rewards and dynamic agent counts.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[22]

Electrophysiological responses i n the ventral temporal cortex during reading of numerals and calculation ,

D. Hermes, V . Rangarajan, B. L. Foster, J.-R. King, I. Ka sikci, K. J. Miller, and J. Parvizi, “Electrophysiological responses i n the ventral temporal cortex during reading of numerals and calculation ,” Cerebral cortex, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 567–575, 2017

work page 2017
[1]

Improving cross-modal alignment fo r text- guided image inpainting,

Y . Zhou and G. Long, “Improving cross-modal alignment fo r text- guided image inpainting,” in Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational L inguistics, 2023, pp. 3445–3456

work page 2023
[2]

Visual semantic role labeling for video understanding,

A. Sadhu, T. Gupta, M. Y atskar, R. Nevatia, and A. Kembhav i, “Visual semantic role labeling for video understanding,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2021, virtua l, June 19- 25, 2021 . Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE, 2021, pp. 5589–5600

work page 2021
[3]

Learning transferable visual models from na tural language supervision,

A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Aga rwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P . Mishkin, J. Clark, G. Krueger, and I. Sutskever, “Learning transferable visual models from na tural language supervision,” in Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtual Event, ser. Proceedings of Machi...

2021
[4]

Cli p-vip: Adapting pre-trained image-text model to video-language r epresentation alignment,

H. Xue, Y . Sun, B. Liu, J. Fu, R. Song, H. Li, and J. Luo, “Cli p-vip: Adapting pre-trained image-text model to video-language r epresentation alignment,” CoRR, vol. abs/2209.06430, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2209.06430

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.06430 2022
[5]

Video-llava: Learning united visual representation by al ignment before projection,

B. Lin, Y . Y e, B. Zhu, J. Cui, M. Ning, P . Jin, and L. Y uan, “Video-llava: Learning united visual representation by al ignment before projection,” in Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2024, Miami, FL, USA, November 12-16, 2024 , Y . Al-Onaizan, M. Bansal, and Y . Chen, Eds. Association for Co...

work page 2024
[6]

Rethinking visual de pendency in long-context reasoning for large vision-language models,

Y . Zhou, Z. Rao, J. Wan, and J. Shen, “Rethinking visual de pendency in long-context reasoning for large vision-language models, ” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.19732, 2024

arXiv 2024
[7]

Visual in-context le arning for large vision-language models,

Y . Zhou, X. Li, Q. Wang, and J. Shen, “Visual in-context le arning for large vision-language models,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2024, Bangkok, Thailand an d virtual meeting, August 11-16, 2024 . Association for Computational Linguis- tics, 2024, pp. 15 890–15 902

work page 2024

Show all 28 references

[8]

An introduction to vision- language modeling,

F. Bordes, R. Y . Pang, A. Ajay, A. C. Li, A. Bardes, S. Petry k, O. Ma˜ nas, Z. Lin, A. Mahmoud, B. Jayaraman, M. Ibrahim, M. Hall, Y . Xiong, J. Lebensold, C. Ross, S. Jayakumar, C. Guo , D. Bouchacourt, H. Al-Tahan, K. Padthe, V . Sharma, H. Xu, X. E . Tan, M. Richards, S. ...

2024 doi arXiv
[9]

Triple sequence generativ e adversarial nets for unsupervised image captioning,

Y . Zhou, W. Tao, and W. Zhang, “Triple sequence generativ e adversarial nets for unsupervised image captioning,” in ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal P rocessing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2021, pp. 7598–7602

2021
[10]

Fine-tuning large vision-language models as decision-making agents via rein forcement learning,

Y . Zhai, H. Bai, Z. Lin, J. Pan, S. Tong, Y . Zhou, A. Suhr, S. Xie, Y . LeCun, Y . Ma, and S. Levine, “Fine-tuning large vision-language models as decision-making agents via rein forcement learning,” CoRR, vol. abs/2405.10292, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48...

2024 doi arXiv
[11]

Style-aware contrastive learning for multi-style image captioning,

Y . Zhou and G. Long, “Style-aware contrastive learning for multi-style image captioning,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2023 , 2023, pp. 2257–2267

2023
[12]

Sketch storytelling,

Y . Zhou, “Sketch storytelling,” in ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICA SSP). IEEE, 2022, pp. 4748–4752

2022
[13]

Moe-llava: Mixture of experts for large vision -language models,

B. Lin, Z. Tang, Y . Y e, J. Cui, B. Zhu, P . Jin, J. Zhang, M. N ing, and L. Y uan, “Moe-llava: Mixture of experts for large vision -language models,” CoRR, vol. abs/2401.15947, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.15947 5

2024 doi arXiv
[14]

Texthawk2: A large vi sion- language model excels in bilingual OCR and grounding with 16 x fewer tokens,

Y . Y u, M. Liao, J. Zhang, and J. Wu, “Texthawk2: A large vi sion- language model excels in bilingual OCR and grounding with 16 x fewer tokens,” CoRR, vol. abs/2410.05261, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.05261

2024 doi arXiv
[15]

Relationvlm: Making large vision-language models unders tand visual relations,

Z. Huang, Z. Zhang, Z. Zha, Y . Lu, and B. Guo, “Relationvlm: Making large vision-language models unders tand visual relations,” CoRR, vol. abs/2403.12801, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.12801

2024 doi arXiv
[16]

Multimodal event transformer for i mage-guided story ending generation,

Y . Zhou and G. Long, “Multimodal event transformer for i mage-guided story ending generation,” in Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Ling uistics, 2023, pp. 3434–3444

2023
[17]

Multimod al large language models: A survey,

J. Wu, W. Gan, Z. Chen, S. Wan, and S. Y . Philip, “Multimod al large language models: A survey,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 2247–2256

2023
[18]

Thread of thought unraveling chaotic contexts,

Y . Zhou, X. Geng, T. Shen, C. Tao, G. Long, J.-G. Lou, and J. Shen, “Thread of thought unraveling chaotic contexts,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08734, 2023

2023 arXiv
[19]

Temporalbench: Benchmarking ﬁne-grained temporal under standing for multimodal video models,

M. Cai, R. Tan, J. Zhang, B. Zou, K. Zhang, F. Y ao, F. Zhu, J . Gu, Y . Zhong, Y . Shang, Y . Dou, J. Park, J. Gao, Y . J. Lee, and J. Y an g, “Temporalbench: Benchmarking ﬁne-grained temporal under standing for multimodal video models,” CoRR, vol. abs/2410.10818, 2024. [Onli...

doi arXiv
[20]

Temporal2seq: A uniﬁed f ramework for temporal video understanding tasks,

M. Y ang, Z. Zhang, and L. Wang, “Temporal2seq: A uniﬁed f ramework for temporal video understanding tasks,” CoRR, vol. abs/2409.18478,

arXiv
[21]

TESTA: temporal-spatial token aggregation for long-form video-l anguage understanding,

S. Ren, S. Chen, S. Li, X. Sun, and L. Hou, “TESTA: temporal-spatial token aggregation for long-form video-l anguage understanding,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, Singapore, December 6-10, 2023 , H. Bouamor, J. Pino, and K. Bali, Eds...

2023 doi
[23]

Timemarker: A versatile video-llm for long and short video understanding with super ior temporal localization ability,

S. Chen, X. Lan, Y . Y uan, Z. Jie, and L. Ma, “Timemarker: A versatile video-llm for long and short video understanding with super ior temporal localization ability,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18211 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[24]

Enhancing video-language representations with structur al spatio- temporal alignment,

H. Fei, S. Wu, M. Zhang, M. Zhang, T. Chua, and S. Y an, “Enhancing video-language representations with structur al spatio- temporal alignment,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. , vol. 46, no. 12, pp. 7701–7719, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2...

2024
[25]

The elements of temporal sentence grounding in videos: A survey and futur e directions,

H. Zhang, A. Sun, W. Jing, and J. T. Zhou, “The elements of temporal sentence grounding in videos: A survey and futur e directions,” CoRR, vol. abs/2201.08071, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.08071

2022 arXiv
[26]

Towards effective time- aware language representation: Exploring enhanced temporal und erstanding in language models,

J. Wang, A. Jatowt, and Y . Cai, “Towards effective time- aware language representation: Exploring enhanced temporal und erstanding in language models,” CoRR, vol. abs/2406.01863, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.01863

2024 doi arXiv
[27]

Temporal reasoning transfer from text to video,

L. Li, Y . Liu, L. Y ao, P . Zhang, C. An, L. Wang, X. Sun, L. Kong, and Q. Liu, “Temporal reasoning transfer from text to video,” CoRR, vol. abs/2410.06166, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.06166 6

2024 doi arXiv
[2024]

Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/ar Xiv.2409.18478

[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/ar Xiv.2409.18478

doi arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [22]

Electrophysiological responses i n the ventral temporal cortex during reading of numerals and calculation ,

D. Hermes, V . Rangarajan, B. L. Foster, J.-R. King, I. Ka sikci, K. J. Miller, and J. Parvizi, “Electrophysiological responses i n the ventral temporal cortex during reading of numerals and calculation ,” Cerebral cortex, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 567–575, 2017

work page 2017

[2] [1]

Improving cross-modal alignment fo r text- guided image inpainting,

Y . Zhou and G. Long, “Improving cross-modal alignment fo r text- guided image inpainting,” in Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational L inguistics, 2023, pp. 3445–3456

work page 2023

[3] [2]

Visual semantic role labeling for video understanding,

A. Sadhu, T. Gupta, M. Y atskar, R. Nevatia, and A. Kembhav i, “Visual semantic role labeling for video understanding,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2021, virtua l, June 19- 25, 2021 . Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE, 2021, pp. 5589–5600

work page 2021

[4] [3]

Learning transferable visual models from na tural language supervision,

A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Aga rwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P . Mishkin, J. Clark, G. Krueger, and I. Sutskever, “Learning transferable visual models from na tural language supervision,” in Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtual Event, ser. Proceedings of Machi...

2021

[5] [4]

Cli p-vip: Adapting pre-trained image-text model to video-language r epresentation alignment,

H. Xue, Y . Sun, B. Liu, J. Fu, R. Song, H. Li, and J. Luo, “Cli p-vip: Adapting pre-trained image-text model to video-language r epresentation alignment,” CoRR, vol. abs/2209.06430, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2209.06430

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.06430 2022

[6] [5]

Video-llava: Learning united visual representation by al ignment before projection,

B. Lin, Y . Y e, B. Zhu, J. Cui, M. Ning, P . Jin, and L. Y uan, “Video-llava: Learning united visual representation by al ignment before projection,” in Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2024, Miami, FL, USA, November 12-16, 2024 , Y . Al-Onaizan, M. Bansal, and Y . Chen, Eds. Association for Co...

work page 2024

[7] [6]

Rethinking visual de pendency in long-context reasoning for large vision-language models,

Y . Zhou, Z. Rao, J. Wan, and J. Shen, “Rethinking visual de pendency in long-context reasoning for large vision-language models, ” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.19732, 2024

arXiv 2024

[8] [7]

Visual in-context le arning for large vision-language models,

Y . Zhou, X. Li, Q. Wang, and J. Shen, “Visual in-context le arning for large vision-language models,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2024, Bangkok, Thailand an d virtual meeting, August 11-16, 2024 . Association for Computational Linguis- tics, 2024, pp. 15 890–15 902

work page 2024