Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Video temporal grounding should be formulated as interval-native prediction rather than endpoint prediction.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-07-31 23:26 UTC pith:2PDQ6DLA

load-bearing objection A plausible interval-native decoding idea whose headline gains over endpoint baselines are confounded by unequal training losses; worth refereeing, not worth believing at face value. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23951 v1 pith:2PDQ6DLA submitted 2026-07-27 cs.CV

TimePLE: Rethinking Temporal Representation for Video Temporal Grounding

Yuhui Zeng , Xinyu Mao , Xiaokun Liu , Xin Tao , Jinfa Huang , Jiayi Ji , Xiawu Zheng This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords video temporal groundinginterval-native predictioncanonical position-duration squarevision-language modelstemporal localizationjoint interval distributionduration-aware decoding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper is trying to establish that the output representation, not just the encoding of time, is what limits VLM-based video temporal grounding. It argues that current methods predict two endpoints—timestamps or boundary coordinates—and then assemble the interval as a derived object, leaving interval validity, duration, and interval-level similarity implicit. TimePLE replaces this with a single joint distribution over valid temporal intervals, defined on a canonical position–duration square, and decoded from one latent token generated by the VLM. Across four benchmarks and three backbone scales it reports consistent gains over matched endpoint baselines, averaging 58.9 mIoU, with the clearest wins on short- and medium-duration events. If the claim holds, it means that where a model puts its probability mass—over intervals rather than endpoints—is a first-order design choice for temporal grounding.

Core claim

The paper's central claim: video temporal grounding is better posed as interval-native prediction than endpoint prediction. Endpoint models—timestamp tokens or boundary coordinates—derive the interval from two separate outputs, leaving validity, duration, and interval-level similarity implicit. TimePLE instead predicts a joint distribution over valid intervals in a canonical position–duration square, where [s,e] maps to (u=s/(1−d), v=d) with d=e−s, so every support point is a valid span and neighbors are similar. A VLM emits one latent <|TIMESPAN|> token decoded into this distribution, refined by duration-aware correction, then mapped to boundaries. Reported result: 58.9 average mIoU (mean i

What carries the argument

Canonical position–duration square: map each normalized interval [s,e] to (u=s/(1−d), v=d), d=e−s; inverse [u(1−v), u(1−v)+v]. Discretized into an Nu×Nv grid, each cell is a valid interval; soft Gaussian targets along position and duration give smooth distributional supervision. This geometry separates 'how long' (v) from 'where such a span can sit' (u), makes neighboring grid cells geometrically similar intervals, and removes invalid boundary configurations—the decoder never has to be told that start ≤ end. The same mapping encodes input-side temporal anchors (the coverage of sampled visual units) and output-side span decoding, so video evidence and predictions share one interval geometry.

Load-bearing premise

The training and evaluation labels are faithful—teacher-model agreement picks out genuinely correct event intervals and human review fixes the remaining benchmark noise; if those labels are skewed toward short and medium moments or toward what the teacher models can parse, the reported gains may partly reflect label distribution rather than the interval-native representation.

What would settle it

Run a controlled comparison where the same VLM backbone, the same 90K curated training samples, and the same training schedule are used for TimePLE and for a continuous-boundary endpoint decoder; if the endpoint decoder reaches or exceeds the reported 58.9 average mIoU on the human-verified benchmark, the advantage attributed to interval-native prediction would not be reproduced.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Interval-native decoding beats matched timestamp-output decoding in every backbone–benchmark comparison reported: 12 of 12, with average gains of 20.6, 0.9, and 4.1 mIoU points for the three model sizes.
  • The gains concentrate on short- and medium-duration moments, where equal absolute boundary errors cause larger overlap losses; long-moment performance remains competitive.
  • The main improvement comes from interval-supervised SFT that aligns the latent <|TIMESPAN|> hidden state with the canonical interval distribution; after that, GRPO and interval-aware post-SFT variants give no stable gain.
  • Encoding input temporal anchors in the same canonical space as output spans aligns video-side evidence with interval prediction; attribution analysis shows TimePLE draws evidence across the target moment rather than from two separate boundary cues.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: If the representation is the cause, existing endpoint-based VTG models could be upgraded by attaching an interval head to the same backbone and training data; a cheap test is to swap only the prediction head and keep everything else fixed.
  • Inference: The same position–duration square could serve any interval-valued prediction task—audio event boundaries, time-series anomaly windows, or action segmentation—where validity and duration matter; the paper only demonstrates the video setting.
  • Inference: The post-SFT results suggest outcome-level rewards are a weak signal for a latent geometric interface; future work seeking RL-style gains should supervise the intermediate span distribution, not just the final boundary.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TimePLE, a video temporal grounding (VTG) method that replaces endpoint prediction with interval-native prediction. An interval is mapped to a point in a canonical position–duration square, and a single <|TIMESPAN|> token generated by the VLM is decoded into a joint distribution over a discretized version of this square. The expected coordinate is refined by a duration-aware correction and inverted to continuous boundaries; input temporal anchors are encoded in the same geometry. Training uses a two-stage procedure: interval-geometry pretraining and interval-supervised SFT with distributional, IoU, and boundary losses, plus a 90K-scale curated training set and a 3K-scale human-corrected benchmark. Experiments across three backbones and four benchmarks report an average mIoU of 58.9 on Qwen3-VL-8B and gains over a matched Timestamp-SFT baseline.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper makes a valuable conceptual contribution: making the interval itself the prediction object, rather than deriving it from two endpoints, and doing so in a geometry where every support point is a valid span. The canonical position–duration parameterization is clean, the motivation is well argued, and the appendix includes a thoughtful analysis of post-SFT optimization that honestly reports negative results. The representation-level analyses (attribution and likelihood landscapes) are a useful diagnostic complement to benchmark numbers. However, the empirical evidence is currently underdetermined: the matched baseline comparisons change more than the output representation, the headline benchmark is partly model-assisted and author-created, and no code, data, or error bars are provided. These issues are load-bearing for the central claim that interval-native prediction is better than endpoint prediction.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3 and §3.4, Eqs. (13)–(16)] The claim that Timestamp-SFT is matched 'with only the temporal prediction interface changed' is not supported by the training objectives. TimePLE's SFT objective includes L_span (Eq. 13) with canonical-grid cross-entropy, 1−IoU, and boundary MAE, plus a separate interval-geometry pretraining stage L_geo (Eq. 14). The Timestamp-SFT baseline is trained with the standard LM loss (Eq. 15) alone. Thus the +4.1 and +20.6 mIoU gains in Table 2 could be caused by the additional dense interval-level supervision and geometry pretraining, not by the canonical square representation. Table 3 ablates TimePLE-SFT against ordinary SFT but never equips the endpoint baseline with equivalent IoU/boundary or grid-distribution losses. The central representation claim is therefore underdetermined. A control that trains an endpoint baseline with analogous soft-target, IoU, and boundary losses (and with the sa
  2. [Appendix D.2–D.3 and Fig. 11] The data-evaluation loop is a correctness risk. Training data are filtered and constructed by teacher VLMs (Qwen3-VL-30B and Gemini-3-Pro) under agreement thresholds, and the benchmark annotations are corrected with Gemini-3-Pro outputs presented as auxiliary evidence in a human review interface. The paper reports no inter-annotator agreement, no statistics on how often final human corrections match the model-assisted suggestions, and no comparison of corrected vs. original annotations split by duration. Because the headline gains are concentrated on short and medium moments, and because Fig. 11 shows systematic paired shifts in start times and durations, it is possible that the label distribution, rather than interval-native prediction, drives part of the advantage. The authors should report human-only correction reliability (e.g., agreement rates, number of annotators, edit distributio
  3. [Table 2 and §4.3] The scaling claim rests on twelve backbone–benchmark comparisons without any variance information. The Qwen2.5-VL-3B gains are 1.1, 1.7, 0.1, and 0.7 mIoU, with average 0.9; without multiple seeds or confidence intervals these could be within noise, especially given the reported GRPO run in Table 3 moves by −0.1 to −0.2 points. The paper also does not release code, the curated 90K training set, or the corrected benchmark, which prevents verification of the matched-baseline protocol and the benchmark correction pipeline. At minimum, the authors should report standard errors or per-seed results and state a concrete release plan for code, data, and annotations.
  4. [Table 1 and §4.2] The headline average mIoU of 58.9 is presented in Table 1 alongside public models whose training data and protocols differ, and it includes Charades-TimePLE, a benchmark that the authors constructed and corrected using model-assisted human review. This number is therefore not directly comparable to prior methods. The controlled comparisons in Table 2 are the appropriate evidence for the representation claim, but the paper should clearly separate uncontrolled leaderboard-style results from controlled comparisons, and should report results both on the original public annotations and on the corrected benchmark so readers can assess the effect of the correction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2 and Eq. (1)] The canonical mapping has a degeneracy at v=1: any u maps to the full-video interval [0,1] under the inverse. The paper defines C([0,1])=(0,1) but does not discuss the grid cells with v=1 and u>0, where the inverse collapses to the same interval. A short clarification would avoid confusion about 'every point in the canonical square corresponds to a valid temporal interval.'
  2. [§4.4 and Figs. 4, 6, 7] The representation-level analyses are qualitative. The attribution and landscape comparisons would be stronger with a quantitative summary, e.g., KL divergence between predicted and ground-truth landscapes, or concentration of attribution mass within the target interval.
  3. [Eq. (9) and Fig. 5] The refinement gate uses epsilon_g=1e-4 and kappa_cap=10, and the bandwidth sigma=0.005 is reported as default. The ablation in Fig. 5 covers sigma and alpha, but not the gate constants; a brief sensitivity note would be useful since kappa_cap directly controls the maximum refinement strength.
  4. [Appendix D.3] The case study says the final human interval [3.484, 10.5] differs from both the original annotation and the Gemini prediction. That is a good illustration, but the paper should provide summary statistics on how often the final decision was Keep, Modify Query, Modify Span, or Delete, and how far final intervals deviated from the model-assisted suggestions.
  5. [Appendix F] The post-SFT experiments are a useful negative result, but Table 4 shows small drops for CSDO and TR-SPD. The text already interprets this as a structural limitation; consider moving one or two sentences of this interpretation into the main paper so readers of the main text do not infer that post-SFT training is unexplored.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The headline matched-baseline comparison changes both output representation and training loss, so the reported mIoU gains partly reduce to the added interval-level supervision rather than to the canonical interval representation.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [§4.3 (Table 2) vs. §3.4 (Eqs. 13, 15, 16)]
    "For each backbone, TimePLE is compared with a matched Timestamp-SFT baseline using the same training data and video input configuration, with only the temporal prediction interface changed."

    The comparison is not interface-only. TimePLE's SFT objective is L_SFT = L_LM + lambda_span * L_SFT_span (Eq. 16), where L_span (Eq. 13) combines canonical-grid cross-entropy, 1 - IoU, and boundary MAE. The Timestamp-SFT baseline uses only the standard token-level LM loss L_LM (Eq. 15). Thus the +4.1 and +20.6 mIoU gains in Table 2 are directly attributable to the extra interval-level IoU/boundary supervision, not to the canonical position-duration square as a representation. The conclusion that replacing endpoint prediction with interval-distribution prediction is superior is therefore not derived from a controlled representation-level comparison.

full rationale

There is no pure derivational circularity in the mathematics: the canonical map C(I)=(u,v) and its inverse are explicit bijections, and the losses supervise the decoded interval against ground-truth labels rather than being defined by the model's own predictions. The data-curation loop is also explicitly defended: training samples are filtered by cross-teacher agreement, and benchmark corrections are human-final (Appendix D.3 reports a case where the final interval differs from both the original annotation and the auxiliary Gemini prediction). The main circularity-adjacent issue is the headline matched-baseline claim: TimePLE's training objective injects dense interval-overlap and boundary supervision that the Timestamp-SFT baseline does not receive, so Table 2 cannot isolate the interval-native representation as the cause of the reported gains. This is an experimental-confounding / internal-validity problem rather than a pure definitional identity, so the score is moderate rather than high. The self-citation of DisTime [38] by an overlapping author is not load-bearing: it is cited only as a continuous-boundary baseline, and TimePLE's derivation does not depend on it.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 6 axioms · 2 invented entities

The method requires several hand-tuned hyperparameters, two architectural assumptions about latent transfer, and two data-quality assumptions about teacher and human labels. No new physical or mathematical entity is introduced beyond two special tokens and a geometric parameterization.

free parameters (7)
  • Canonical grid resolution (N_u=N_v) = 128×128
    Chosen by reconstruction ablation (Fig. 5a); 192² gives only marginal span-IoU gain while increasing support points 2.25×.
  • Gaussian bandwidths σ_u, σ_v = 0.005 (0.015 for attribution)
    Tuned via the reconstruction sweep in Fig. 5c; controls how local the soft interval supervision target is.
  • Residual refinement scale α = 0.09
    Selected by the ablation in Fig. 5b; α=0 degrades reconstruction, larger values destabilize it.
  • Gate constants κ_cap, ε_g = κ_cap=10, ε_g=1e-4
    Hand-set to keep refinement bounded; no external justification is given.
  • Loss weights λ_dfl, λ_iou, λ_bnd, λ_span = not reported
    Weights in Eqs. 13 and 16 are not specified, though they are required to reproduce training.
  • Data-curation agreement thresholds = not reported
    The IoU threshold for two-teacher agreement and the semantic-consistency threshold are not given, yet they determine the 90K training set.
  • Video sampling budget = 2 FPS, ≤200 frames, 64 tokens/frame
    Computational choice that fixes temporal resolution for input anchors; not externally grounded.
axioms (6)
  • standard math The canonical map C(I)=(s/(1-d), d) is a bijection between normalized intervals with d<1 and the unit square; every point except the special full-video case yields a valid interval.
    Used in Eqs. 1 and 2; true for the stated domain, though the v=1 row collapses to a single interval.
  • standard math A dense decoder over the canonical grid can be interpreted as a distribution over valid temporal intervals.
    Section B.2; follows from the map, modulo the v=1 degeneracy.
  • domain assumption A single <|TIMESPAN|> hidden state carries enough information to decode the full interval distribution after SFT.
    Core architectural premise; no theoretical guarantee that the VLM will encode complete event intervals in one token.
  • domain assumption Synthetic interval-geometry training transfers to real video-language hidden states.
    Stage 1 trains the codec on uniformly sampled coordinates; Stage 2 assumes the same decoder works on VLM spans.
  • domain assumption Teacher VLMs (Qwen3-VL-30B and Gemini-3-Pro) provide reliable interval evidence for filtering and constructing training samples.
    Section D.2: samples are kept when both teachers agree; teacher accuracy is not validated separately.
  • domain assumption Human-verified benchmark corrections are accurate and improve on the original annotations.
    Section D.3: corrected labels are treated as ground truth; inter-annotator agreement is not reported.
invented entities (2)
  • <|TIMESPAN|> output token independent evidence
    purpose: Hidden state decoded into the joint interval distribution over the canonical square.
    New special token central to the method; its decoded intervals are evaluated on benchmarks.
  • <|TIMESTAMP|> input anchor token independent evidence
    purpose: Encodes temporal coverage of visual units using the same canonical interval geometry.
    New special token for input-side alignment; its effect is measurable through ablations.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19807 in / 15246 out tokens · 150651 ms · 2026-07-31T23:26:10.142714+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Video temporal grounding (VTG) aims to localize the continuous video interval described by a natural-language query. However, current VLM-based methods typically produce this interval indirectly through two endpoint outputs, represented either as discrete timestamp tokens or continuous boundary coordinates. These formulations differ in how endpoints are encoded, but not in what is predicted: the event interval remains a derived object, while interval validity, duration, and interval-level similarity are handled only implicitly. We propose TimePLE, which reformulates VTG from endpoint prediction to interval-native grounding by predicting a single joint distribution over valid temporal intervals. TimePLE maps each interval to a point in a canonical position-duration square, where every support point corresponds to a valid span and neighboring points represent geometrically similar intervals. Given a video and query, the VLM generates a single latent <|TIMESPAN|> token whose hidden state is decoded into a joint interval distribution, refined through duration-aware coordinate correction, and converted into continuous boundaries. The same interval representation is used to encode input temporal anchors, aligning video-side temporal evidence with output-side span prediction. To reliably align the latent span representation with complete event intervals, we curate 90K-scale grounded samples and human-verify 3K-scale benchmark annotations. Experiments across four VTG benchmarks show that TimePLE consistently outperforms endpoint prediction baselines, achieving an average mIoU of 58.9, with clear gains on short-duration and medium-duration events.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23951 by Jiayi Ji, Jinfa Huang, Xiaokun Liu, Xiawu Zheng, Xin Tao, Xinyu Mao, Yuhui Zeng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: From endpoint prediction to interval-native temporal grounding. Existing methods represent a temporal moment through two endpoint outputs, encoded either as discrete timestamp tokens or continuous boundary coordinates, and assemble the interval afterward. TimePLE instead predicts a single joint distribution over valid temporal intervals, from which the final start and end boundaries are subsequently decode… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of TimePLE. Temporal anchors are encoded in a canonical position–duration space and inserted into the VLM through <|TIMESTAMP|> tokens. The hidden state of a generated <|TIMESPAN|> token is decoded into a joint distribution over valid intervals, refined, and mapped to continuous temporal boundaries. 3.2 Canonical Interval Square To parameterize a joint distribution over valid temporal intervals, T… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Representation-level analysis. (a) Gradient × Input attribution for Timestamp-Text start–end and TimePLE position–duration targets. Dashed lines denote ground-truth boundaries. (b) Timestamp-Text likelihood reconstructed over valid start–end candidates versus TimePLE’s native distribution over the canonical interval square. Crosses and diamonds denote ground truth and prediction. higher mIoU for TimePLE in… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Interval-space reconstruction analysis. From left to right, we study the canonical grid resolution, residual refinement scale α, and Gaussian bandwidth σ. Reconstruction largely saturates at 1282 , benefits from a small residual correction with α = 0.09, and performs best under moderately local supervision with σ = 0.005. triangular valid region, whereas TimePLE concentrates probability around the target i… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Additional temporal evidence attribution cases. Timestamp-Text attribution is computed from the teacher-forced likelihoods of the ground-truth start and end timestamp tokens, while TimePLE attribution is computed from the soft marginal likelihoods of the ground-truth canonical position and duration. Dashed lines denote the ground-truth temporal boundaries. B.1 Canonical Position-Duration Parameterization T… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Additional interval likelihood landscapes. Timestamp-Text landscapes are reconstructed by enumerating 528 valid start–end candidates and normalizing their teacher-forced numerical-token likelihoods. TimePLE directly outputs a joint probability distribution over the canonical interval square. Crosses and diamonds denote the ground truth and model prediction, respectively. and Ie denote the numeric-token pos… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The video VLMs take the video and query as input, produce an event-level timeline and a query-specific temporal prediction, and the resulting fields are used for existing-sample filtering and new grounded-sample construction. Each candidate is formatted as a textual timestamp response and evaluated through teacher-forced numerical￾token likelihood: S(i, j) = 1 Nij X k∈Iij log pθ(zk | z<k, V, Q), Ptext(i, j… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Structured prompting protocol for model-assisted benchmark correction. Gemini-3-Pro takes the video, original query, and original temporal annotation as input, and outputs a calibrated query, refined temporal segment, and concise reasoning. These outputs are displayed in the review interface as auxiliary evidence for human correction. D.2 Training Data Curation and Construction We construct the TimePLE tra… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Web-based interface for benchmark correction. The interface contains a Progress Panel for tracking the review queue, a Comparison Panel for comparing the original query, Gemini-assisted calibrated query, and temporal intervals, a Video Panel for inspecting the full video and localized clips, an Edit Panel for modifying the final query and temporal interval, a Decision Panel for recording the human decisio… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Temporal distribution changes after benchmark correction. (a) Start-time distributions of the original and corrected annotations, with the inset showing the paired start-time shift. (b) Duration distributions of the original and corrected annotations, with the inset showing the paired duration shift. Positive shifts indicate later corrected start times or longer corrected durations. The dashed vertical li… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Temporal distribution of the curated 90K-scale training set. The x-axis denotes the ground-truth start time in seconds, and the y-axis denotes the moment duration D = tend − tstart in seconds. The color intensity represents log(count + 1). The duration axis is plotted on a logarithmic scale, and dashed horizontal lines indicate the 10s and 30s thresholds used for duration-stratified evaluation. 0.0 2.5 5.… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 28 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Localizing moments in video with natural language

    Lisa Anne Hendricks, Oliver Wang, Eli Shechtman, Josef Sivic, Trevor Darrell, and Bryan Russell. Localizing moments in video with natural language. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2017

    2017

  2. [2]

    Qwen3-vl technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631, 2025

    Shuai Bai, Yuxuan Cai, Ruizhe Chen, et al. Qwen3-vl technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Qwen2.5-vl technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13923, 2025

    Shuai Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, et al. Qwen2.5-vl technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13923, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Longvila: Scaling long-context visual language models for long videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.10188, 2024

    Yukang Chen, Fuzhao Xue, Dacheng Li, et al. Longvila: Scaling long-context visual language models for long videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.10188, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Gemini 3.1 pro model card, 2026

    Google DeepMind. Gemini 3.1 pro model card, 2026. URLhttps://storage.googleapis.com/deepmind-media /Model-Cards/Gemini-3-1-Pro-Model-Card.pdf

    2026

  6. [6]

    Seq2time: Sequential knowledge transfer for video llm temporal grounding

    Andong Deng, Zhongpai Gao, et al. Seq2time: Sequential knowledge transfer for video llm temporal grounding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.16932, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Videotg-r1: Boosting video temporal grounding via curriculum reinforcement learning on reflected boundary annotations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.23397, 2025

    Lu Dong, Haiyu Zhang, Han Lin, Ziang Yan, Xiangyu Zeng, Hongjie Zhang, Yifei Huang, Yi Wang, Zhen-Hua Ling, Limin Wang, and Yali Wang. Videotg-r1: Boosting video temporal grounding via curriculum reinforcement learning on reflected boundary annotations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.23397, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Tall: Temporal activity localization via language query

    Jiyang Gao, Chen Sun, Zhenheng Yang, and Ram Nevatia. Tall: Temporal activity localization via language query. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 5267–5275, 2017

    2017

  9. [9]

    Longvale: Vision- audio-language-event benchmark towards time-aware omni-modal perception of long videos

    Tiantian Geng, Jinrui Zhang, Qingni Wang, Teng Wang, Jinming Duan, and Feng Zheng. Longvale: Vision- audio-language-event benchmark towards time-aware omni-modal perception of long videos. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 18959–18969, 2025

    2025

  10. [10]

    Ego4d: Around the world in 3,000 hours of egocentric video

    Kristen Grauman et al. Ego4d: Around the world in 3,000 hours of egocentric video. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022

    2022

  11. [11]

    Vtg-llm: Integrating timestamp knowledge into video llms for enhanced video temporal grounding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13382, 2024

    Yongxin Guo, Jingyu Liu, Mingda Li, et al. Vtg-llm: Integrating timestamp knowledge into video llms for enhanced video temporal grounding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13382, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Vtimellm: Empower llm to grasp video moments.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.18445, 2024

    Bin Huang, Xin Wang, Hong Chen, et al. Vtimellm: Empower llm to grasp video moments.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.18445, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Lita: Language instructed temporal-localization assistant.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.19046, 2024

    De-An Huang, Shijia Liao, Subhashree Radhakrishnan, et al. Lita: Language instructed temporal-localization assistant.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.19046, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    How should video llms output time? an analysis of efficient temporal grounding paradigms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.08966, 2026

    Shengji Jin, Yuanhao Zou, Victor Zhu, Zhengping Ji, and Chen Chen. How should video llms output time? an analysis of efficient temporal grounding paradigms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.08966, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    Dense-captioning events in videos

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

    2017

  16. [16]

    Detecting moments and highlights in videos via natural language queries

    Jie Lei, Tamara L Berg, and Mohit Bansal. Detecting moments and highlights in videos via natural language queries. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2021

    2021

  17. [17]

    Llava-onevision: Easy visual task transfer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03326, 2024

    Bo Li, Yuanhan Zhang, Dong Guo, Renrui Zhang, Feng Li, Hao Zhang, Kaichen Zhang, Peiyuan Zhang, Yanwei Li, Ziwei Liu, et al. Llava-onevision: Easy visual task transfer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03326, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Video-opd: Efficient post-training of multimodal large language models for temporal video grounding via on-policy distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.02994, 2026

    Jiaze Li, Hao Yin, Haoran Xu, Boshen Xu, Wenhui Tan, Zewen He, Jianzhong Ju, Zhenbo Luo, and Jian Luan. Video-opd: Efficient post-training of multimodal large language models for temporal video grounding via on-policy distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.02994, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    Tempsamp-r1: Effective temporal sampling with reinforcement fine-tuning for video llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.18056, 2025

    Yunheng Li, Jing Cheng, Shaoyong Jia, Hangyi Kuang, Shaohui Jiao, Qibin Hou, and Ming-Ming Cheng. Tempsamp-r1: Effective temporal sampling with reinforcement fine-tuning for video llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.18056, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Universal video temporal grounding with generative multi-modal large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18883, 2025

    Zeqian Li, Shangzhe Di, Zhonghua Zhai, et al. Universal video temporal grounding with generative multi-modal large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18883, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Video-llava: Learning united visual representation by alignment before projection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10122, 2023

    Bin Lin, Yang Ye, Bin Zhu, Jiaxi Cui, Munan Ning, Peng Jin, and Li Yuan. Video-llava: Learning united visual representation by alignment before projection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10122, 2023. 11 MAC-AutoML

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Video-chatgpt: Towards detailed video understanding via large vision and language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05424, 2024

    Muhammad Maaz, Hanoona Rasheed, Salman Khan, and Fahad Shahbaz Khan. Video-chatgpt: Towards detailed video understanding via large vision and language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05424, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Tar-tvg: Enhancing vlms with timestamp anchor-constrained reasoning for temporal video grounding

    X Mo et al. Tar-tvg: Enhancing vlms with timestamp anchor-constrained reasoning for temporal video grounding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.07683, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Gpt-4o system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276, 2024

    OpenAI. Gpt-4o system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Momentor: Advancing video large language model with fine-grained temporal reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11435, 2024

    Long Qian et al. Momentor: Advancing video large language model with fine-grained temporal reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11435, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Grounding action descriptions in videos.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics (TACL), 1:25–36, 2013

    Michaela Regneri, Marcus Rohrbach, Dominikus Wetzel, Stefan Thater, Bernt Schiele, and Manfred Pinkal. Grounding action descriptions in videos.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics (TACL), 1:25–36, 2013

    2013

  27. [27]

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

    Shuhuai Ren et al. Timechat: A time-sensitive multimodal large language model for long video understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.02051, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Mad: A scalable dataset for language grounding in videos from movie audio descriptions

    Mattia Soldan, Alejandro Pardo, Juan León Alcázar, Fabian Caba Heilbron, Chen Zhao, Silvio Giancola, and Bernard Ghanem. Mad: A scalable dataset for language grounding in videos from movie audio descriptions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022

    2022

  29. [29]

    Grounded-videollm: Sharpening fine-grained temporal grounding in video large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03290, 2024

    Haoran Wang et al. Grounded-videollm: Sharpening fine-grained temporal grounding in video large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03290, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Qwen2-vl: Enhancing vision-language model’s perception of the world at any resolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12191, 2024

    Peng Wang, Shuai Bai, Sinan Tan, et al. Qwen2-vl: Enhancing vision-language model’s perception of the world at any resolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12191, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Internvl3.5: Advancing open-source multimodal models in versatility, reasoning, and efficiency.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.18265, 2025

    Weiyun Wang, Zhangwei Gao, Lixin Gu, Hengjun Pu, Long Cui, Xingguang Wei, Zhaoyang Liu, Linglin Jing, Shenglong Ye, Jie Shao, et al. Internvl3.5: Advancing open-source multimodal models in versatility, reasoning, and efficiency.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.18265, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Timerefine: Temporal grounding with time refining video llm.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.09601, 2024

    Xizi Wang et al. Timerefine: Temporal grounding with time refining video llm.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.09601, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Time-r1: Post-training large vision language model for temporal video grounding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13377, 2025

    Ye Wang, Ziheng Wang, Boshen Xu, et al. Time-r1: Post-training large vision language model for temporal video grounding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13377, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Internvid: A large-scale video-text dataset for multimodal understanding and generation

    Yi Wang, Yinan He, Yizhuo Li, Kunchang Li, Jiashuo Yu, Xin Ma, Xinhao Li, Guo Chen, Xinyuan Chen, Yaohui Wang, Conghui He, Ping Luo, Ziwei Liu, Yali Wang, Limin Wang, and Yu Qiao. Internvid: A large-scale video-text dataset for multimodal understanding and generation. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024

    2024

  35. [35]

    Internvideo2.5: Empowering video mllms with long and rich context modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12386, 2025

    Yi Wang, Xinhao Li, Ziang Yan, et al. Internvideo2.5: Empowering video mllms with long and rich context modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12386, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Number it: Temporal grounding videos like flipping manga.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.10332, 2024

    Yongliang Wu et al. Number it: Temporal grounding videos like flipping manga.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.10332, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Tempo-r0: A video-mllm for temporal video grounding through efficient temporal sensing reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.04702, 2025

    Feng Yue, Zhaoxing Zhang, Junming Jiao, Zhengyu Liang, Shiwen Cao, Feifei Zhang, and Rong Shen. Tempo-r0: A video-mllm for temporal video grounding through efficient temporal sensing reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.04702, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Distime: Distribution-based time representation for video large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.24329, 2025

    Y Zeng et al. Distime: Distribution-based time representation for video large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.24329, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Videollama 3: Frontier multimodal foundation models for image and video understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13106, 2025

    Boqiang Zhang, Kehan Li, Zesen Cheng, Zhiqiang Hu, Yuqian Yuan, Guanzheng Chen, Sicong Leng, Yuming Jiang, Hang Zhang, Xin Li, et al. Videollama 3: Frontier multimodal foundation models for image and video understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13106, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Video-llama: An instruction-tuned audio-visual language model for video understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02858, 2023

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Vtimecot: Thinking by drawing for video temporal grounding and reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.14672, 2025

    Jinglei Zhang, Yuanfan Guo, Rolandos Alexandros Potamias, et al. Vtimecot: Thinking by drawing for video temporal grounding and reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.14672, 2025. 12 MAC-AutoML

    arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Timelens: Rethinking video temporal grounding with multimodal llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.14698, 2025

    Jun Zhang, Teng Wang, Yuying Ge, Yixiao Ge, Xinhao Li, Ying Shan, and Limin Wang. Timelens: Rethinking video temporal grounding with multimodal llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.14698, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Long context transfer from language to vision.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16852, 2024

    Peiyuan Zhang et al. Long context transfer from language to vision.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16852, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Llava-video: Video instruction tuning with synthetic data, 2024

    Yuanhan Zhang, Jinming Wu, Wei Li, Bo Li, Zejun Ma, Ziwei Liu, and Chunyuan Li. Llava-video: Video instruction tuning with synthetic data, 2024

    2024

  45. [45]

    how long the moment lasts

    Luowei Zhou, Chenliang Xu, and Jason J Corso. Towards automatic learning of procedures from web instructional videos. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pages 7590–7598, 2018. 13 MAC-AutoML Appendix Appendix Contents A Implementation Details A.1 VLM Backbone and Temporal Token Interface A.2 Interval Codec Configuration...

    2018