Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 65 references

TriPSS: A Tri-Modal Keyframe Extraction Framework Using Perceptual, Structural, and Semantic Representations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 TriPSS fuses CIELAB color statistics, ResNet-50 embeddings, and LLaMA-generated captions to extract keyframes with F1 of 0.6104 on TVSum20 and 0.5902 on SumMe, outperforming every compared baseline.

desk verdict Plausible tri-modal keyframe pipeline with a credible ablation, but the SOTA claim rests on an unstated ground-truth rule and protocol-mismatched baselines. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05395 v2 pith:OAFNFYCV submitted 2025-06-03 cs.CV cs.IRcs.MMeess.IV

Mert Can Cakmak , Nitin Agarwal , Diwash Poudel This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.IRcs.MMeess.IV
keywords keyframeextractionvideosummarizationmultimodalfusionCIELABcolorfeaturesResNet-50embeddingsLLaMA-3.2captionHDBSCANclusteringF1evaluation
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

TriPSS sets out to show that keyframe extraction improves when each frame is described by three complementary views at once: human-oriented color statistics in CIELAB space, deep structural features from ResNet-50, and sentence embeddings of captions generated by a vision-language model. The paper claims that after z-score normalization, concatenation, and PCA projection to 512 dimensions, HDBSCAN clustering of these fused embeddings selects keyframes as cluster medoids, and that quality checks plus SSIM duplicate filtering refine the set. On the TVSum20 and SumMe benchmarks this pipeline reaches F1 scores of 0.6104 and 0.5902, which the paper reports as state-of-the-art and above every unimodal and prior multimodal method it compares against. If correct, the result matters because it gives a training-free, modular recipe for turning a video into a compact set of representative frames for summarization and retrieval.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the fused, PCA-compressed multimodal embedding $f' = W f$, built from $f_c$ (CIELAB histograms, moments, and colorfulness), $f_i$ (ResNet-50 features), and $f_t$ (MPNet caption embeddings), concatenated to $f$ after z-score normalization. HDBSCAN partitions the projected embeddings into clusters whose densities adapt to scene dynamics, and the medoid of each cluster, ordered by frame index, becomes the initial keyframe; the refinement stage drops low-quality frames using intensity, edge, saliency, and text-presence heuristics and prunes redundant frames with SSIM. The medoid rule carries the argument: every selected keyframe is a real frame from the video rather than a synthetic centroid, and the number of keyframes is determined by the data rather than preset.

What would settle it

Recompute the comparison with an explicit rule for building $K^*$ from TVSum20 shot-level importance scores and SumMe per-video user ratings, for example taking the top 15% of frames by score, locating local maxima, or using a fixed score threshold, and rerun the F1 metric at threshold 0.9 under each rule. If any reasonable rule drops TriPSS below AugFusion or Ldpp-c on SumMe, or below LMSKE or VS-Inception on TVSum20, the claim that TriPSS sets the state of the art fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that no single visual signal is enough for keyframe selection, but their fusion is. TriPSS represents each frame by a 778-dimensional perceptual vector of CIELAB histograms, moments, and colorfulness, a 2048-dimensional ResNet-50 embedding, and a 768-dimensional MPNet encoding of a LLaMA-3.2 caption; the z-scored concatenation is projected by PCA to $f' = W f$ in 512 dimensions, and HDBSCAN clusters these projected vectors so that each cluster's medoid frame becomes a keyframe. Ablations show every modality contributes, with the full combination reaching F1 0.6104 on TVSum20 and 0.5902 on SumMe, and the paper asserts this surpasses both unimodal and prior multimodal approaches on these benchmarks.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison rests on an unstated rule for converting each dataset's annotations into the set of correct keyframes used in F1 matching; if different labs choose different reasonable rules, the scores and the state-of-the-art conclusion would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Removing any one of the three modalities lowers F1, so the reported gain comes from the combination: the full TriPSS scores 0.6104 on TVSum20 and 0.5902 on SumMe, while the best two-modality variant, structural plus semantic, scores 0.5843 and 0.5388.
  • A fixed 512-dimensional PCA projection is sufficient for the fused signal; PCA-256 degrades performance and PCA-1024 adds cost without clear improvement, so the recipe does not hinge on a delicate dimensionality choice.
  • Because HDBSCAN treats low-density frames as noise and selects one medoid per cluster, the number of keyframes adapts to each video and the chosen frames are real frames in temporal order.
  • The semantic stream can be produced by an off-the-shelf vision-language model with a fixed prompt and deterministic decoding, which keeps the pipeline reproducible and makes it straightforward to swap in a different captioner or text encoder.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Section 4 defines F1 matching at cosine similarity threshold 0.9 but never states how the ground-truth keyframe set $K^*$ is built from TVSum20 shot-level importance scores or SumMe per-video user ratings; the reported scores therefore stand on an unstated data transformation, and any reader reimplementing the benchmark must choose that rule themselves.
  • Because the F1 metric matches frames by embedding similarity rather than timestamp, the choice of features used to represent the ground-truth frames in the cosine comparison can move every number in Table 2 even when the keyframe indices are fixed.
  • The paper itself notes that the pipeline uses simple concatenation and lacks temporal modeling, which points to attention-based fusion or sequence-aware selection as the most direct next step; the ablation also suggests the perceptual color stream contributes the least, so it could be dropped in compute-constrained settings at a modest F1 cost.
  • The framework is training-free and modular, so a natural stress test is to replace LLaMA-3.2 with a smaller captioner or ResNet-50 with a lighter backbone and rerun the same protocol against the same baselines.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. TriPSS extracts keyframes by fusing three frame-level representations: CIELAB color statistics, ResNet-50 embeddings, and LLaMA-3.2-generated caption embeddings. The three modalities are z-score normalized, concatenated, and projected via PCA to 512 dimensions; HDBSCAN clustering selects cluster medoids as candidate keyframes, and a refinement stage removes low-quality and duplicate frames. The authors report F1 scores of 0.6104 on TVSum20 and 0.5902 on SumMe, and claim state-of-the-art performance over both unimodal and prior multimodal approaches.

Significance. The paper's strength is its modular, mostly unsupervised pipeline that combines low-level perceptual features, deep visual embeddings, and LLM-derived semantic captions, together with a complete ablation over modality combinations. If the headline numbers were reproducible under a common evaluation protocol, TriPSS would be a useful and easily adoptable baseline for keyframe extraction, and the paper would make a solid engineering contribution to video summarization. However, the current evidence for the state-of-the-art claim is weakened by two load-bearing issues: the ground-truth keyframe construction is never defined, and hyperparameters were tuned on the same test benchmarks used for the final scores. These problems make the reported margins over prior work unverifiable as presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 3.4 and 3.5] The F1 evaluation is not well defined: the paper states that a predicted keyframe h_j matches a ground-truth keyframe h_i when cosine similarity exceeds tau = 0.9, but it never states how the ground-truth keyframe set K* is constructed from TVSum20 or SumMe. TVSum20 provides shot-level importance scores and SumMe provides per-video user ratings; converting either into a discrete keyframe set requires an aggregation and thresholding rule, and different such rules change |K*| and hence F1. The Table 2 baseline numbers are taken from other papers whose evaluation protocols are not described; without evidence that all methods use the same K* construction and matching rule, the reported margins over the best baselines (0.6104 vs. 0.5880 on TVSum20, 0.5902 vs. 0.5840 on SumMe) may be artifacts of protocol differences. Because the central claim of the paper is state-of-the-art performance, this omission is load-bearing.
  2. [Sections 3.4 and 3.5] Hyperparameters were selected on the test benchmarks. Section 3.4 reports that PCA with 512 components was chosen because it 'provided the best accuracy–efficiency balance' on TVSum20 and SumMe, after comparing 256, 512, and 1024 components; Section 3.5 reports a grid search over HDBSCAN hyperparameters optimizing DBCV, again on the same datasets, without a separate validation split. This means the reported F1 scores are the result of test-set tuning and are likely optimistically biased. No error bars, standard deviations, or significance tests are reported, so the abstract's claim of 'significantly outperforming' prior methods is not supported.
  3. [Section 3.6 (Refined Keyframe Selection)] The refinement stage has several quantitative free parameters that are never specified: the grayscale intensity, variance, and Canny/Laplacian thresholds for discarding low-light frames; the histogram-variance cutoff for color uniformity; the saliency comparison rule; the MSER and ORB parameters for text detection; and the SSIM threshold for duplicate removal. These parameters directly control the size and content of the final keyframe set K, and therefore the reported F1. Without stating their values, the experiment is not reproducible, and the contribution of the refinement module cannot be isolated from the rest of the pipeline.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1] The paper says 'The implementation of TriPSS is available at GitHub link' but no URL is given; either provide the actual repository or remove the sentence.
  2. [Table 2] The table heading uses 'TvSum20' while the text and other tables use 'TVSum20'; please unify the capitalization.
  3. [Figure 2] The caption says 'TvSum Dataset' and shows a video_id (akI8YFjEmUw) that appears to be a YouTube-style identifier; please clarify the dataset naming and the origin of the video identifier.
  4. [Section 3.4] The perceptual feature vector is described as being in R^778, but the paper does not specify the number of histogram bins or the exact moment computations that produce this dimension; please add these details.
  5. [Section 3.3] The CLAIR metric is mentioned for caption-quality assessment, but a one-sentence description of what it measures would help readers who are not familiar with it.
  6. [Section 3.3] The keyword-based filtering step says frames are replaced with 'No visible content' when they contain predefined keywords, but the keyword list is not provided; please include it or describe the filtering rule precisely.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the reported F1 values are measurements against external benchmarks, and the unstated ground-truth keyframe construction is an evaluation-protocol issue rather than a circular step.

full rationale

TriPSS is a forward pipeline: z-score normalize three frozen feature vectors (CIELAB, ResNet-50, caption embeddings), concatenate, PCA-project, cluster with HDBSCAN, take cluster medoids, and refine via quality and duplicate filters. No parameter is fitted to the reported F1 values or to the ground-truth keyframe set. The ablations in Table 1 and the baselines in Table 2 are all measured against external benchmark annotations, so the central claim does not reduce to its own inputs by construction. The only potentially leaky choices are the PCA dimensionality and HDBSCAN hyperparameters, which the paper says were selected across TVSum20 and SumMe: "Across TVSum20 and SumMe, PCA with 512 components provided the best accuracy-efficiency balance" (Section 3.4) and "A grid search was conducted to tune HDBSCAN hyperparameters for optimal DBCV score" (Section 3.5). These are test-set tuning and evaluation-leakage concerns, not circular-derivation concerns, because the selected settings do not encode the F1 labels. Section 4 defines F1 against a ground-truth set K* but never states how K* is constructed from TVSum20 shot-level importance scores or SumMe user ratings; that omission makes the SOTA comparison unverifiable as presented but does not make any reported number equivalent to an input by definition. No load-bearing result is imported from the present authors' own prior work; the reference list is entirely external. Therefore, no circular step is exhibited and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on four hand-fitted or test-set-tuned parameters (PCA dimension, HDBSCAN grid search, filtering thresholds, and the 0.9 cosine-matching cutoff) and on six assumptions about pretrained features, clustering semantics, and evaluation comparability. The two ad hoc assumptions, baseline protocol equivalence and ground-truth keyframe derivation, are the heaviest because the paper neither cites nor verifies them. No invented entities are proposed.

free parameters (4)
  • PCA projection dimension = 512
    Chosen by comparing F1 across TVSum20 and SumMe after testing PCA-256, PCA-512, and PCA-1024 (Section 3.4), i.e., selected on the evaluation benchmarks.
  • HDBSCAN hyperparameters (min_cluster_size, min_samples) = Not reported
    A grid search was run to maximize DBCV on each evaluation dataset (Section 3.5); the winning values are not given, so the clustering configuration is a test-set-fitted free parameter.
  • Quality and duplicate filtering thresholds = Not reported
    Low-light discard criteria, Canny/Laplacian variance cutoffs, and the SSIM duplicate-removal threshold are described qualitatively in Section 3.6 without numerical values.
  • Cosine similarity matching threshold tau = 0.9
    The F1 metric matches ground-truth and predicted keyframes only when cosine similarity is at least 0.9 (Section 4); the threshold is chosen by hand and directly determines all reported F1 scores.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption CIELAB color moments and histograms are perceptually meaningful features for clustering frames into keyframe candidates.
    Section 3.1 assumes perceptual uniformity of the Lab space makes these statistics useful for this task; standard in color imaging but unverified here.
  • domain assumption ImageNet-pretrained ResNet-50 v1.5 embeddings capture structural content relevant to keyframe selection without task-specific fine-tuning.
    Section 3.2 adopts the IMAGENET1K_V2 weights directly as the structural modality; no validation that these features align with keyframe importance.
  • domain assumption One-sentence LLaMA-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct captions embedded by all-mpnet-base-v2 carry the semantic content needed for keyframe clustering.
    Section 3.3 justifies LLaMA via a CLAIR score (0.71 on COCO) and qualitative inspection, but caption quality on TVSum20/SumMe frames is not measured.
  • domain assumption HDBSCAN clusters with medoid selection followed by quality and SSIM filtering produce keyframes that match human importance judgments.
    Sections 3.5 and 3.6 assume density-based clustering plus post-filtering is a valid proxy for human-annotated keyframes; no human agreement analysis is given.
  • ad hoc to paper The F1 numbers of the cited baseline methods are comparable to the paper's frame-level cosine-similarity F1 at tau=0.9.
    Section 4 defines a custom matching scheme, yet Table 2 mixes in F1 values from other papers without demonstrating protocol equivalence.
  • ad hoc to paper Ground-truth keyframes K* can be derived from TVSum20 shot-level importance scores and SumMe user ratings.
    The F1 computation requires a ground-truth keyframe set, but Section 4 never states the conversion rule from the dataset annotations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TriPSS: A Tri-Modal Keyframe Extraction Framework Using Perceptual, Structural, and Semantic Representations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OAFNFYCV

@misc{pith2026250605395,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TriPSS: A Tri-Modal Keyframe Extraction Framework Using Perceptual, Structural, and Semantic Representations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OAFNFYCV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05395}
}
read the original abstract

Efficient keyframe extraction is critical for video summarization and retrieval, yet capturing the full semantic and visual richness of video content remains challenging. We introduce TriPSS, a tri-modal framework that integrates perceptual features from the CIELAB color space, structural embeddings from ResNet-50, and semantic context from frame-level captions generated by LLaMA-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct. These modalities are fused using principal component analysis to form compact multi-modal embeddings, enabling adaptive video segmentation via HDBSCAN clustering. A refinement stage incorporating quality assessment and duplicate filtering ensures the final keyframe set is both concise and semantically diverse. Evaluations on the TVSum20 and SumMe benchmarks show that TriPSS achieves state-of-the-art performance, significantly outperforming both unimodal and prior multimodal approaches. These results highlight TriPSS' ability to capture complementary visual and semantic cues, establishing it as an effective solution for video summarization, retrieval, and large-scale multimedia understanding.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05395 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the TriPSS Framework for Keyframe Extraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of Keyframe Extraction Demonstrating Temporal Distribution for the Video “Electric Cars Making Earth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ghassan Mahmoud Husien Amer and Ahmed Mohamed Abushaala. 2015. Edge detection methods. In 2015 2nd World Symposium on Web Applications and Networking (WSW AN). IEEE, 1–7

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Evlampios Apostolidis, Georgios Balaouras, Vasileios Mezaris, and Ioannis Patras. 2021. Combining global and local attention with positional encoding for video summarization. In 2021 IEEE international symposium on multimedia (ISM). IEEE, 226–234

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Milan K Asha Paul, Jeyaraman Kavitha, and P Arockia Jansi Rani. 2018. Key- frame extraction techniques: a review. Recent Patents on Computer Science , 11, 1, 3–16

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Muhammad Asim, Noor Almaadeed, Somaya Al-Máadeed, Ahmed Bouridane, and Azeddine Beghdadi. 2018. A key frame based video summarization using color features. In 2018 Colour and Visual Computing Symposium (CVCS) . IEEE, 1–6

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Illya Bakurov, Marco Buzzelli, Raimondo Schettini, Mauro Castelli, and Leonardo Vanneschi. 2022. Structural similarity index (ssim) revisited: a data-driven ap- proach. Expert Systems with Applications, 189, 116087

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Sai Sukruth Bezugam, Swatilekha Majumdar, Chetan Ralekar, and Tapan Kumar Gandhi. 2021. Efficient video summarization framework using eeg and eye- tracking signals. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.11249

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Yujian Cai, Xingguang Li, Yingyu Zhang, Jinsong Li, Fazheng Zhu, and Lin Rao

    work page

  8. [8]

    Ricardo JGB Campello, Davoud Moulavi, and Jörg Sander. 2013. Density-based clustering based on hierarchical density estimates. In Pacific-Asia conference on knowledge discovery and data mining . Springer, 160–172

    work page 2013

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    David Chan, Suzanne Petryk, Joseph E Gonzalez, Trevor Darrell, and John Canny. 2023. Clair: evaluating image captions with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12971

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Guo Chen et al. 2023. Videollm: modeling video sequence with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13292

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Sandra Eliza Fontes De Avila, Ana Paula Brandao Lopes, Antonio da Luz Jr, and Arnaldo de Albuquerque Araújo. 2011. Vsumm: a mechanism designed to produce static video summaries and a novel evaluation method. Pattern recognition letters, 32, 1, 56–68

    2011

  4. [12]

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. 2009. Imagenet: a large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 248–255. doi:10.1109/CVPR.2009.5 206848

    2009 doi

  5. [13]

    Vincenzo Di Lecce and Andrea Guerriero. 2003. Image feature meaning for au- tomatic key-frame extraction. InStorage and Retrieval Methods and Applications for Multimedia 2004. Vol. 5307. SPIE, 319–328

    2003

  6. [14]

    Martin Ester, Hans-Peter Kriegel, Jörg Sander, Xiaowei Xu, et al. 1996. A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise. In kdd number 34. Vol. 96, 226–231

    1996

  7. [15]

    Hugging Face. 2025. Sentence-transformers/all-mpnet-base-v2. Accessed: Jan- uary 20, 2025. (2025). https://huggingface.co/sentence-transformers/all-mpnet -base-v2

    2025

  8. [16]

    Luis C Garcia-Peraza-Herrera, Sebastien Ourselin, and Tom Vercauteren. 2023. Videosum: a python library for surgical video summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10173

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Hana Gharbi, Sahbi Bahroun, Mohamed Massaoudi, and Ezzeddine Zagrouba

  10. [18]

    Michael Gygli, Helmut Grabner, Hayko Riemenschneider, and Luc Van Gool

  11. [19]

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 770–778

    2016

  12. [20]

    Cheng Huang and Hongmei Wang. 2019. A novel key-frames selection frame- work for comprehensive video summarization. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 30, 2, 577–589

    2019

  13. [21]

    Hai-Dang Huynh-Lam, Ngoc-Phuong Ho-Thi, Minh-Triet Tran, and Trung- Nghia Le. 2023. Cluster-based video summarization with temporal context awareness. In Pacific-Rim Symposium on Image and Video Technology . Springer, 15–28

    2023

  14. [22]

    Şahin Işık. 2014. A comparative evaluation of well-known feature detectors and descriptors. International Journal of Applied Mathematics Electronics and Computers, 3, 1, 1–6

    2014

  15. [23]

    Amal Kammoun, Philippe Ravier, and Olivier Buttelli. 2024. Impact of pca pre- normalization methods on ground reaction force estimation accuracy. Sensors, 24, 4, 1137

    2024

  16. [24]

    Michail Kaseris, Ioannis Mademlis, and Ioannis Pitas. 2022. Exploiting caption diversity for unsupervised video summarization. In ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 1650–1654

    2022

  17. [25]

    Shamal Kashid, Lalit K Awasthi, Krishan Berwal, and Parul Saini. 2024. Stvs: spatio-temporal feature fusion for video summarization. IEEE MultiMedia

    2024

  18. [26]

    Retno Kusumaningrum, Hisar Maruli Manurung, and Aniati Murni Arymurthy

  19. [27]

    Ping Li, Qinghao Ye, Luming Zhang, Li Yuan, Xianghua Xu, and Ling Shao

  20. [28]

    Hao Liang et al. 2024. Keyvideollm: towards large-scale video keyframe selec- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03104

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Bin Lin, Yang Ye, Bin Zhu, Jiaxi Cui, Munan Ning, Peng Jin, and Li Yuan

  22. [30]

    INKOM Journal of Informatics, Control Systems, and Computers , 8, 2, 111–116

    Cielab color moments: alternative descriptors for landsat images classifi- cation system. INKOM Journal of Informatics, Control Systems, and Computers , 8, 2, 111–116

  23. [31]

    Yen-Ting Liu, Yu-Jhe Li, Fu-En Yang, Shang-Fu Chen, and Yu-Chiang Frank Wang. 2019. Learning hierarchical self-attention for video summarization. In 2019 IEEE international conference on image processing (ICIP) . IEEE, 3377–3381

    2019

  24. [32]

    Subhrajyoti Maji and John Dingliana. 2022. Perceptually optimized color selec- tion for visualization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14472

    2022

  25. [33]

    Guangyi Man and Xiaoyan Sun. 2022. Interested keyframe extraction of com- modity video based on adaptive clustering annotation. Applied Sciences, 12, 3, 1502

    2022

  26. [34]

    Meta. 2025. Meta-llama/llama-3.2-11b-vision-instruct. Hugging Face. Accessed: January 4, 2025. (2025). https://huggingface.co/meta-llama/Llama-3.2-11B-Vis ion-Instruct

    2025

  27. [35]

    Microsoft. 2025. Phi-3-vision-128k-instruct. Hugging Face. Accessed: February 10, 2025. (2025). https://huggingface.co/microsoft/Phi-3-vision-128k-instruct

    2025

  28. [36]

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dollár, and C Lawrence Zitnick. 2014. Microsoft coco: common objects in context. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proce...

    2014

  29. [37]

    Bilyamin Muhammad, Bashir Sadiq, Ime Umoh, and H Bello-Salau. 2020. A k-means clustering approach for extraction of keyframes in fast-moving videos. International Journal of Information Processing and Communication (IJIPC) , 9, 1&2, 147–157

    2020

  30. [38]

    HM Nandini, HK Chethan, and BS Rashmi. 2022. Shot based keyframe extrac- tion using edge-lbp approach. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences, 34, 7, 4537–4545

    2022

  31. [39]

    Jongwoo Park, Kanchana Ranasinghe, Kumara Kahatapitiya, Wonjeong Ryoo, Donghyun Kim, and Michael S Ryoo. 2024. Too many frames, not all useful: efficient strategies for long-form video qa. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09396

    2024

  32. [40]

    Theodoros Psallidas and Evaggelos Spyrou. 2023. Video summarization based on feature fusion and data augmentation. Computers, 12, 9, 186

    2023

  33. [41]

    Alec Radford et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 8748–8763

    2021

  34. [42]

    Davoud Moulavi, Pablo A Jaskowiak, Ricardo JGB Campello, Arthur Zimek, and Jörg Sander. 2014. Density-based clustering validation. In Proceedings of the 2014 SIAM international conference on data mining . SIAM, 839–847

    2014

  35. [43]

    Jorge Michel Diaz Rodriguez, Pin Yao, and Wanggen Wan. 2018. Selection of key frames through the analysis and calculation of the absolute difference of histograms. In 2018 International Conference on Audio, Language and Image Processing (ICALIP). IEEE, 423–429

    2018

  36. [44]

    Surendra Kumar Sharma, Kamal Jain, and Anoop Kumar Shukla. 2023. A com- parative analysis of feature detectors and descriptors for image stitching. Ap- plied Sciences, 13, 10, 6015

    2023

  37. [45]

    Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Jianfeng Lu, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2020. Mpnet: masked and permuted pre-training for language understanding. Advances in neural information processing systems , 33, 16857–16867

    2020

  38. [46]

    Jhuma Sunuwar and Samarjeet Borah. 2024. A comparative analysis on major key-frame extraction techniques. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 1–46

    2024

  39. [47]

    Kailong Tan, Yuxiang Zhou, Qianchen Xia, Rui Liu, and Yong Chen. 2024. Large model based sequential keyframe extraction for video summarization. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computing, Machine Learning and Data Science, 1–5

    2024

  40. [48]

    Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. Squad: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. (2016). https://a rxiv.org/abs/1606.05250 arXiv: 1606.05250 [cs.CL]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Hao Tang, Lei Ding, Songsong Wu, Bin Ren, Nicu Sebe, and Paolo Rota. 2023. Deep unsupervised key frame extraction for efficient video classification. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications and Applications , 19, 3, 1–17

    2023

  42. [50]

    Caroline Violot, Tuğrulcan Elmas, Igor Bilogrevic, and Mathias Humbert. 2024. Shorts vs. regular videos on youtube: a comparative analysis of user engage- ment and content creation trends. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Web Science Conference, 213–223

    2024

  43. [51]

    Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2019. Glue: a multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. (2019). https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.07461 arXiv: 1804.07461 [cs.CL]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Junbo Wang, Wei Wang, Zhiyong Wang, Liang Wang, Dagan Feng, and Tieniu Tan. 2019. Stacked memory network for video summarization. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM international conference on multimedia , 836–844

    2019

  45. [53]

    Ziyang Wang, Shoubin Yu, Elias Stengel-Eskin, Jaehong Yoon, Feng Cheng, Gedas Bertasius, and Mohit Bansal. 2024. Videotree: adaptive tree-based video representation for llm reasoning on long videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19209

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Reuben Tan, Ximeng Sun, Ping Hu, Jui-hsien Wang, Hanieh Deilamsalehy, Bryan A Plummer, Bryan Russell, and Kate Saenko. 2024. Koala: key frame- conditioned long video-llm. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition , 13581–13591. MA-L...

    2024

  47. [55]

    Matthew Wilkerson, Grace Vincent, Zaki Hasnain, Sambit Bhattacharya, and Emily Dunkel. 2024. Benchmarking resnet50 for image classification on diverse hardware platforms. The ITEA Journal of Test and Evaluation , 45, 3

    2024

  48. [56]

    Sina Zarrieß, Henrik Voigt, and Simeon Schüz. 2021. Decoding methods in neural language generation: a survey. Information, 12, 9, 355

    2021

  49. [57]

    Hong Zhao, Wei-Jie Wang, Tao Wang, Zhao-Bin Chang, and Xiang-Yan Zeng

  50. [58]

    Ziqian Zhao and Weilun Huang. 2021. The consumption behaviour of short video users and its influencing factors. In 2021 5th Annual International Confer- ence on Data Science and Business Analytics (ICDSBA) . IEEE, 214–220

    2021

  51. [60]

    Ross Wightman, Hugo Touvron, and Hervé Jégou. 2021. Resnet strikes back: an improved training procedure in timm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.00476

    2021 arXiv

  52. [2014]

    In Computer Vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part VII 13

    Creating summaries from user videos. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part VII 13. Springer, 505–520

    2014

  53. [2017]

    In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)

    Key frames extraction using graph modularity clustering for efficient video summarization. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 1502–1506

    2017

  54. [2019]

    Mathematical Problems in Engineering , 2019, 1, 5217961

    Key-frame extraction based on hsv histogram and adaptive clustering. Mathematical Problems in Engineering , 2019, 1, 5217961

    2019

  55. [2021]

    Pattern Recognition, 111, 107677

    Exploring global diverse attention via pairwise temporal relation for video summarization. Pattern Recognition, 111, 107677

  56. [2023]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10122

    Video-llava: learning united visual representation by alignment before projection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10122

    arXiv

  57. [2025]

    Scientific Reports, 15, 1, 2126

    Multimodal sentiment analysis based on multi-layer feature fusion and multi-task learning. Scientific Reports, 15, 1, 2126

Pith tools

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