Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 28 references

DAEP: Difficulty-Aware Evidence Planning for Medical Video Corpus Temporal Answer Grounding

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a task-provided Simple/Complex difficulty label can drive an inference-time evidence plan — controlling modality weights, retrieval breadth, boundary expansion, and span reranking — and that the resulting system…

desk verdict Solid shared-task system paper with an honest limitations section; the official first-place result is externally grounded, but the difficulty-planner's causal gain is only validation-level and the paper says so. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06869 v2 pith:CJ3L34MN submitted 2026-08-07 cs.CV cs.CL

Tianjian He , Yujie Liu , Zhiping Huang , Changbo Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.CL
keywords temporalanswergroundingvideocorpusmomentretrievaldifficulty-awareevidenceplanningmedicalinstructionalquestionansweringmultimodalspanrerankingsharedtasksystem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a single binary difficulty label — the one the task already provides — can act as a plan for how a video-answer system should search, rather than an input it should merely classify. Its system, DAEP, converts Simple/Complex into an evidence plan that sets how many subtitle units feed a video score, how far boundaries expand, and how strongly whole spans are reranked. If that claim is right, temporal answer grounding gains a cheap adaptation mechanism: long answers get broad verification, compact answers get focused retrieval. The authors support the claim with a first-place finish among ten systems on the official task and with validation ablations showing the planner's removal costs the most on complex questions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the hybrid evidence plan $\pi_i=\{w_i,K_i,\tau_i,L_i,\lambda_i\}$, produced by a planner that reads the question, the difficulty label, and initial modality match scores. The planner's learned half sets per-question modality weights $w_i$ and reranking strength $\lambda_i$; its discrete half maps the label through a fixed lookup $\Gamma(y)$ to the Top-$K$ aggregation count, the boundary score threshold $\tau$, and the expansion length $L$ (in subtitle positions). That plan coordinates the three stages of the pipeline: candidate video ranking via weighted modality fusion and Top-$K$ pooling, temporal boundary decoding by thresholded anchor expansion, and whole-span consistency reranking. The same label thus changes how much evidence is collected and how far a span may grow, which is the mechanism the paper credits for the gains on complex questions.

What would settle it

Run the same validation-selected checkpoint on the official hidden-test inputs with the difficulty-conditioned lookup reversed (Complex questions receive the Simple controls and vice versa) and compare Average scores; if the reversed plan does not lose to the original lookup, label-conditioned planning is not what carries the reported gain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that difficulty-aware evidence planning improves video corpus temporal answer grounding. Given a question, fifty candidate videos, and a Simple/Complex label, DAEP builds a plan $\pi_i=\{w_i,K_i,\tau_i,L_i,\lambda_i\}$: modality weights $w_i$ and reranking strength $\lambda_i$ are learned per question, while the discrete controls — aggregation breadth $K_i$, boundary threshold $\tau_i$, and expansion length $L_i$ — come from a difficulty-conditioned lookup fixed on validation (Simple: $(2,0.55,1)$, Complex: $(5,0.35,3)$). The system ranks videos by fusing text, visual, and procedural-context scores with adaptive Top-$K$ pooling, decodes anchored spans by expanding above a threshold, then rescales each span by a learned consistency score. In the official evaluation the complete system ranks first among ten submissions on R@1|mIoU, R@10|mIoU, R@100|mIoU, and their Average (0.2728); on validation, removing the planner lowers Average from 0.2646 to 0.2245, with the larger drop on Complex questions (0.2554 to 0.2075).

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes the benchmark-supplied Simple/Complex label reliably tracks how much evidence a question needs, and that the validation split used to fix the lookup is representative of the hidden test, so the plan's gain is not just validation selection.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The full system places first among ten submissions on all four official metrics, with an Average of 0.2728 and a 9.4% relative improvement over the runner-up.
  • Validation ablations within the system show every tested component contributes: removing visual evidence, context evidence, span reranking, or the planner lowers Average by 0.0170, 0.0254, 0.0097, and 0.0401, respectively.
  • The difficulty plan helps most where the task is hardest: without the planner, Average on Complex validation questions falls from 0.2554 to 0.2075, a larger drop than the Simple group's 0.2729 to 0.2400.
  • Replacing the true label with a fixed or a shuffled difficulty assignment reduces validation Average (to 0.2414 and 0.2328, respectively), so the label-conditioned lookup contributes beyond a static configuration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to replace the supplied binary label with a predicted evidence-demand score, since the paper's planner already shows that domain knowledge can be injected as discrete controls; the same framework could adapt to questions whose scope is inferred from text length or answer-duration priors.
  • The result suggests a transferable design principle for temporal grounding: a single coarse property of the question (here, binary difficulty) can coordinate multiple stages of a pipeline — retrieval breadth, boundary threshold, expansion, and reranking — rather than only the final scoring head.
  • Because the lookup and checkpoint are validation-selected and no test-side ablations are reported, an independent re-run with multiple seeds and a true held-out split is the direct way to test whether the 0.0401 planner gain is a selection artifact.
  • The paper's own qualitative failure modes (narration/action drift, subtitle-visual mismatch, bilingual terminology) point to cross-modal alignment as the next bottleneck; a planner that also decides when to trust subtitles versus pixels could extend the same conditional design.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper describes DAEP, the BIGC submission to NLPCC 2026 Shared Task 1 Track 3 (DA-TAGVC). The system decomposes the task into video retrieval and temporal span localization, using subtitle text, visual features, and procedural context as evidence modalities. Its novel component is a difficulty-aware evidence planner: the benchmark-provided Simple/Complex label selects discrete inference controls (Top-K, boundary threshold, expansion length, and a reranking-strength schedule), while modality weights and reranking strength are learned per question. The authors report that BIGC ranked first among ten systems on the official leaderboard with an Average score of 0.2728, and they present validation ablations in which removing visual evidence, context, span reranking, or the difficulty planner reduces Average. The paper is candid about its limitations: it uses a single validation-selected run, no repeated-seed variance, no confidence intervals, and no alternative validation splits.

Significance. If the difficulty-planning claim is sound, the paper makes a modest but useful contribution: it provides an inspectable interface between an input difficulty label and several evidence-allocation decisions in a shared-task system. The official leaderboard result is externally grounded and demonstrates that the complete system is competitive, and the paper explicitly separates the leaderboard claim from the within-run validation analysis. The methodological strength is the clear reporting of implementation details, hyperparameter ranges, and the acknowledgement of evidential limits. However, the paper's central scientific novelty—that difficulty-conditioned planning improves ranking quality, especially on complex questions (Abstract, Tables 4–5)—is not yet established because the planner's discrete lookup is selected on the same validation split used for the ablation comparison, and the no-planner control is not tuned with comparable effort. The leaderboard establishes the competitiveness of the complete system, but not the causal contribution of the difficulty planner.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Tables 4–5, Section 5] The 0.0401 Average gain attributed to the difficulty-aware planner is measured on the same validation split that was used to select the test lookup Γ from an 80-tuple grid per difficulty group (Section 4.2). The 'w/o DA Planner' row in Table 4 uses a single hand-picked tuple (K=3, τ=0.45, L=2, λ=0.15) rather than the best fixed tuple under comparable selection effort. Therefore the gain conflates label-conditioned planning with discrete hyperparameter selection that can fit validation noise. The paper's own Section 5 acknowledges 'one validation-selected run' and no alternative splits, so this is a load-bearing limitation for the abstract's causal claim. To establish the planning effect, the authors need a held-out validation split or nested cross-validation in which the lookup grid is selected on one part and evaluated on another, and the fixed-tuple control should be tuned with the same budget.
  2. [Table 5, Section 4.5] The 'Fixed difficulty' and 'Shuffled difficulty' rows are better controls than the no-planner row, but they are still evaluated on the same split used to select both branches of the comparison. 'Shuffled difficulty' uses one fixed permutation, so no variance or significance statement is possible, and the grid selection procedure for the shuffled branch is not described. Without repeated permutations, confidence intervals, or multiple validation folds, the larger gaps on Complex questions (0.2554 vs. 0.2288 versus Fixed, and 0.2554 vs. 0.2163 versus Shuffled) do not establish that the label itself, rather than the selected hyperparameters, carries the benefit.
  3. [Abstract and Table 3] The statement that difficulty-aware planning yields 'the largest gain on complex questions' rests on Table 3, where the Average drop without the planner is 0.0479 for Complex groups and 0.0329 for Simple groups. Because these differences are computed on a single validation split with a validation-selected planner and no repeated-seed variance or significance testing, the comparison cannot distinguish a true difficulty interaction from noise or from the different operating points of the simple and complex lookups. The claim should be softened or supported with per-group confidence intervals, ideally from leave-one-group-out or repeated subsampling of the validation split.
  4. [Equation (1) and Section 3.5] The hybrid planner mixes learned per-question weights (wi, λi) with discrete controls (Ki, τi, Li) selected from Γ(y) on validation. The paper states that gradients update wi and λi but not the discrete lookup (Section 3.5). This is a sensible design, but it means the discrete lookup is a validation-tuned hyperparameter, not a learned component. The manuscript should state this more prominently in the abstract and introduction, because the claimed contribution is the difficulty-conditioned discrete plan, and the current evidence for it is a validation selection result rather than a held-out evaluation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.5, Table 5] The order-prior and frequency-prior descriptions are too compressed; please give the exact formulas or pseudocode, and state whether these priors were tuned on validation or fixed a priori.
  2. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'Repeated-seed variance and end-to-end inference latency are not reported' is useful, but it belongs in the limitations subsection of Section 5 rather than buried in implementation details.
  3. [Section 5] The phrase 'Positive-IoU candidate coverage' is introduced without definition; please define it or remove it, since the manuscript otherwise avoids undefined metrics.
  4. [Section 3.6] In Equation (2), the symbol R↓i is used both for the sorted list and (via subscripting) for its elements; using a separate notation for the ranked list, such as Li or Ri, would reduce confusion.
  5. [Abstract and Section 4.4] The abstract says 'ranked first among ten systems on all four official metrics', which matches Table 2. Please also mention in the abstract that the leaderboard comparison includes systems with potentially different backbones and training data, since the paper itself correctly notes in Section 4.5 that these are not shared-backbone baselines.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Planner-improvement claim is measured on the same validation split used to select its discrete lookup, so the reported ablation gain is partly a selection artifact; the official leaderboard result is independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2 (Implementation Details) and Section 4.5 / Table 5 (Validation Analysis)]
    "The validation grid contains 80 tuples per difficulty group: K∈{1,...,5}, τ∈{0.35,0.45,0.55,0.65}, and L∈{0,...,3}. The test lookup is Γ(Simple) = (2, 0.55, 1) and Γ(Complex) = (5, 0.35, 3). ... Fixed difficulty assigns every question to the stronger Simple branch. ... The planner ablation uses uniform modality weights, K = 3, τ = 0.45, L = 2, and λ = 0.15."

    The planner's discrete controls (K, τ, L) are selected per difficulty group by maximizing validation Average, and the planner's benefit is then measured on the same validation split. DAEP's row in Table 5 is the per-group validation maximum, while 'Fixed difficulty' is one branch selected as 'stronger' on the same split; on the same data, a per-group maximum is definitionally at least as large as any fixed single branch, so the Table 5 gain is forced by the selection procedure rather than by label information. The Table 4 'w/o DA Planner' baseline is a single hand-picked tuple rather than the best fixed tuple, so comparing selected maxima with an arbitrary baseline inflates the reported 0.0401 planner gain.

full rationale

The official leaderboard result (Section 4.4) is external and not circular: BIGC's Average of 0.2728 comes from the released official evaluation, not from the paper's own fitted values. The VCMR decomposition and the BERT/CLIP encoders are standard published components, with no load-bearing self-citation chain. The circularity is confined to the difficulty-aware planner claim. The test lookup Γ is selected from an 80-tuple grid on validation, and the same validation split is then used to quantify the planner's benefit in Tables 4 and 5. Because the DAEP row is the per-group validation maximum while the 'Fixed difficulty' control is a single validation-selected branch and the 'w/o DA Planner' row is a hand-picked tuple, the positive gains in Tables 4 and 5 are at least partly guaranteed by the selection procedure rather than by the label's information content. The paper's own caveat that these comparisons are 'diagnostic rather than unbiased test estimates' confirms the limitation, and no test-side ablations, repeated-seed variance, or alternative validation splits are reported. The official ranking remains independent evidence for the competitiveness of the complete system, but the abstract's claim that difficulty-aware planning improves ranking quality, with the largest gain on complex questions, is not yet supported by an unbiased evaluation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest mainly on trained and validation-selected parameters rather than new theoretical axioms. The most important ledger items are the learned modality weights and reranking strength and the validation-selected difficulty lookup that drives the planner. The load-bearing domain assumptions are that the difficulty label is informative and that the subtitle-aligned unit representation is sufficient. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Modality weights w_i = Learned per question via MLP softmax on official training data
    Fuses text, visual, and context cosine scores in Eq. 2; this is the learned component of the planner.
  • Reranking strength lambda_i = Learned per question, scaled by lambda_max = 0.30
    Controls span-consistency contribution in Eq. 5; fitted from training rather than derived.
  • Difficulty lookup Gamma: K, tau, L = Simple: (2, 0.55, 1); Complex: (5, 0.35, 3)
    Selected from an 80-tuple validation grid per difficulty group; these discrete controls are the core of the planning claim and are fitted to validation performance.
  • lambda_max = 0.30
    Hand-set bound on reranking strength; not swept in the reported results.
  • D_nms, H, M_v, M = 2, 2, 50, 100
    Hand-set hyperparameters for NMS suppression, anchor count, ranked videos considered, and span pool size.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The task-provided Simple/Complex difficulty label is a reliable and informative signal for evidence demand.
    The planner maps this label to all discrete controls in Eq. 1 (Section 3.5); if the label is noisy or unrelated to evidence scope, the planner's benefit could be spurious.
  • domain assumption Subtitle-aligned units with 1 fps CLIP frames and local procedural context are sufficient evidence for retrieval and localization.
    The entire pipeline (Sections 3.2 to 3.4) represents videos only as these units; a loss of subtitle or visual alignment would break both retrieval and span decoding.
  • domain assumption Validation performance is a valid selector for the planner controls and generalizes to the hidden test.
    Gamma and the final checkpoint are chosen on validation and not re-evaluated on test-side ablations (Sections 4.2 and 4.5); the paper acknowledges this is diagnostic rather than unbiased.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DAEP: Difficulty-Aware Evidence Planning for Medical Video Corpus Temporal Answer Grounding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CJ3L34MN

@misc{pith2026260806869,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DAEP: Difficulty-Aware Evidence Planning for Medical Video Corpus Temporal Answer Grounding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CJ3L34MN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06869}
}
read the original abstract

We describe DAEP, team BIGC's submission to NLPCC 2026 Shared Task 1 Track 3: Difficulty-Aware Temporal Answer Grounding in Video Corpus (DA-TAGVC). The task requires retrieving the target video from 50 candidates and localizing the answer-supporting span. DAEP ranks videos with subtitle, visual, and procedural-context evidence, expands high-scoring anchors into temporal spans, and reranks spans for final output. Its main design is to convert the task-provided simple/complex input label into an inference-time evidence plan controlling modality weights, Top-K aggregation, boundary threshold, expansion length, and reranking strength. In the official evaluation, BIGC ranks first among ten systems with an Average score of 0.2728. Validation ablations show that visual evidence, procedural context, and difficulty-aware planning improve ranking quality, with the largest gain on complex questions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06869 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Motivation for difficulty-aware evidence planning, illustrated with released Track 3 training examples. The examples show how the supplied label can lead the planner to consider different evidence scopes; they are not a distributional comparison of answer duration. DA-TAGVC couples video retrieval with temporal boundary prediction, ex￾tending the NLPCC medical instructional video QA series [14, 13, 20]. Questions wi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. DAEP overview on a released Track 3 training example, from candidate-video retrieval to temporal grounding, span reranking, and top-n output. The ground-truth video and gold span are shown only for illustration and are unavailable at validation and test time. task-provided simple/complex label as an inference-time interface that coordinates retrieval, evidence aggregation, boundary decoding, and reranking. 3 Method … view at source ↗

Review history (3 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In: Proceedings of the 26th ICML

    Bengio, Y., Louradour, J., Collobert, R., Weston, J.: Curriculum learn- ing. In: Proceedings of the 26th ICML. pp. 41–48. ACM (2009). https://doi.org/10.1145/1553374.1553380

    arXiv 2009

  2. [2]

    In: Natural Language Process- ing and Chinese Computing

    Cheng, S., Zhou, Z., Liu, J., Ye, J., Luo, H., Gu, Y.: A unified framework for optimizing video corpus retrieval and temporal answer grounding: Fine-grained modality alignment and local-global optimization. In: Natural Language Process- ing and Chinese Computing. LNCS, vol. 14304, pp. 199–210. Springer (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44699-3_18 ...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-44699-3_18 2023

  3. [3]

    In: Proceedings of NAACL- HLT 2019

    Devlin, J., Chang, M.W., Lee, K., Toutanova, K.: BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In: Proceedings of NAACL- HLT 2019. pp. 4171–4186. Association for Computational Linguistics (2019). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1423

    doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 2019

  4. [4]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13429 (2025)

    Eyzaguirre, C., Vasiljevic, I., Dave, A., Wu, J., Ambrus, R.A., Kollar, T., Niebles, J.C., Tokmakov, P.: Understanding complexity in VideoQA via visual program generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13429 (2025). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.13429

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.13429 2025

  5. [5]

    In: Proceedings of IEEE ICCV 2017

    Gao, J., Sun, C., Yang, Z., Nevatia, R.: TALL: Temporal activity localization via language query. In: Proceedings of IEEE ICCV 2017. pp. 5277–5285 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2017.563

    doi:10.1109/iccv.2017.563 2017

  6. [6]

    Scientific Data10, 158 (2023)

    Gupta, D., Attal, K., Demner-Fushman, D.: A dataset for medical instructional video classification and question answering. Scientific Data10, 158 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02036-y

    doi:10.1038/s41597-023-02036-y 2023

  7. [7]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision

    Hendricks, L.A., Wang, O., Shechtman, E., Sivic, J., Darrell, T., Russell, B.: Localizing moments in video with natural language. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 5804–5813 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2017.618

    doi:10.1109/iccv.2017.618 2017

  8. [8]

    In: Proceedings of ACM ICMR 2024

    Hou, D., Pang, L., Shen, H., Cheng, X.: Improving video corpus moment retrieval with partial relevance enhancement. In: Proceedings of ACM ICMR 2024. pp. 394–403. ACM (2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3652583.3658088

    work page arXiv 2024

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    In: Proceedings of the 29th ACM MM

    Hou, Z., Ngo, C.W., Chan, W.K.: CONQUER: Contextual query-aware ranking for video corpus moment retrieval. In: Proceedings of the 29th ACM MM. pp. 3900–3908. ACM (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3474085.3475281

    2021

  2. [10]

    In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    Lei, J., Berg, T.L., Bansal, M.: Detecting moments and highlights in videos via natural language queries. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. vol. 34, pp. 11846–11858 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    In: Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the ACL

    Lei, J., Yu, L., Berg, T.L., Bansal, M.: TVQA+: Spatio-temporal grounding for video question answering. In: Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the ACL. pp. 8211–8225. Association for Computational Linguistics (2020). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.730

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    In: Computer Vision – ECCV 2020

    Lei, J., Yu, L., Berg, T.L., Bansal, M.: TVR: A large-scale dataset for video- subtitle moment retrieval. In: Computer Vision – ECCV 2020. LNCS, vol. 12366, pp. 447–463. Springer (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58589-1_27

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    In: Natural Language Processing and Chinese Comput- ing

    Li, B., Liu, S., Weng, Y., Du, Y., Tian, Y., Zhou, S.: Overview of the NLPCC 2025 shared task 4: Multi-modal, multilingual, and multi-hop medical instructional video question answering challenge. In: Natural Language Processing and Chinese Comput- ing. LNCS, vol. 16105, pp. 36...

    2026 doi

  6. [14]

    In: Natural Language Process- ing and Chinese Computing

    Li, B., Weng, Y., Guo, H., Sun, B., Li, S., Luo, Y., Qi, M., Liu, X., Han, Y., Liang, H., Gao, S., Chen, C.: Overview of the NLPCC 2023 shared task: Chinese medical instructional video question answering. In: Natural Language Process- ing and Chinese Computing. LNCS, vol. 1430...

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    In: Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing

    Li, B., Weng, Y., Song, Q., Liang, L., Min, X., Zhou, S.: Overview of the NLPCC 2024 shared task 7: Multi-lingual medical instructional video question answering. In: Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing. LNCS, vol. 15363, pp. 429–439. Springer (2025). https://doi....

    2025 doi

  8. [17]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence46(12), 8836–8853 (2024)

    Li, S., Li, B., Sun, B., Weng, Y.: Towards visual-prompt temporal answer grounding in instructional video. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence46(12), 8836–8853 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2024.3411045

    2024

  9. [18]

    In: Proceedings of IEEE/CVF ICCV 2023

    Lin, K.Q., Zhang, P., Chen, J., Pramanick, S., Gao, D., Wang, A.J., Yan, R., Shou, M.Z.: UniVTG: Towards unified video-language temporal grounding. In: Proceedings of IEEE/CVF ICCV 2023. pp. 2782–2792 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV51070.2023.00262

    2023

  10. [19]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.06618 (2026)

    Liu, S., Li, K., Zhao, M., Tian, Y., Li, B.: Overview of the NLPCC 2026 shared task 1: Difficulty-aware multilingual and multimodal medical instruc- tional video understanding evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.06618 (2026). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.06618

    2026 doi arXiv

  11. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.04289 (2025)

    Liu, S., Li, K., Zhao, M., Tian, Y., Li, B., Zhou, S., Li, H., Yang, F.:M 3-Med: A benchmark for multi-lingual, multi-modal, and multi-hop reasoning in med- ical instructional video understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.04289 (2025). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.04289

    2025 doi arXiv

  12. [21]

    In: Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing

    Ma, T., Hu, Y., Jiang, S., Yin, Z., Zang, T.: Multilingual temporal answer grounding in video corpus with enhanced visual-textual integration. In: Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing. LNCS, vol. 15363, pp. 471–483. Springer (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981...

    2025 doi

  13. [22]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing30, 8886–8899 (2021)

    Paul, S., Mithun, N.C., Roy-Chowdhury, A.K.: Text-based localization of moments in a video corpus. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing30, 8886–8899 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2021.3120038

    2021

  14. [23]

    In: Proceedings of the 38th ICML

    Radford, A., Kim, J.W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., Krueger, G., Sutskever, I.: Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In: Proceedings of the 38th ICML. PMLR, vol. 139, pp. 8748–...

    2021

  15. [24]

    IEEE Access8, 180633–180645 (2020)

    Terao, K., Tamaki, T., Raytchev, B., Kaneda, K., Satoh, S.: An entropy clustering approach for assessing visual question difficulty. IEEE Access8, 180633–180645 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3022063

    2020

  16. [25]

    In: Proceedings of IEEE ICASSP 2023

    Weng, Y., Li, B.: Visual answer localization with cross-modal mutual knowl- edge transfer. In: Proceedings of IEEE ICASSP 2023. pp. 1–5. IEEE (2023). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP49357.2023.10095026

    2023

  17. [26]

    In: Proceedings of IEEE/CVF CVPR 2020

    Zeng, R., Xu, H., Huang, W., Chen, P., Tan, M., Gan, C.: Dense regression network for video grounding. In: Proceedings of IEEE/CVF CVPR 2020. pp. 10284–10293 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR42600.2020.01030

    2020

  18. [27]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the 44th ACM SIGIR Conference

    Zhang, H., Sun, A., Jing, W., Nan, G., Zhen, L., Zhou, J.T., Goh, R.S.M.: Video corpus moment retrieval with contrastive learning. In: Pro- ceedings of the 44th ACM SIGIR Conference. pp. 685–695. ACM (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3404835.3462874

    2021

  19. [28]

    In: Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the ACL

    Zhang, H., Sun, A., Jing, W., Zhou, J.T.: Span-based localizing network for nat- ural language video localization. In: Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the ACL. pp. 6543–6554. Association for Computational Linguistics (2020). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.585

    2020 doi

  20. [29]

    In: Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing

    Zhou, Y., Wu, J., Li, Y.: Multi-hop knowledge-enhanced query reasoning for multi- modal medical video QA. In: Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing. LNCS, vol. 16105, pp. 380–392. Springer (2026). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981- 95-3352-7_32

    2026 doi

Pith tools

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