Do Egocentric Video-Language Models Capture Both Hand- and Object-Centric Cues?

Alexandros Stergiou; Dima Damen; Masatoshi Tateno; Risa Shinoda; Yoichi Sato

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Do Egocentric Video-Language Models Capture Both Hand- and Object-Centric Cues?

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-10 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Egocentric video-language models can be trained to reason from hands and objects separately, not just their co-occurrence.

desk verdict Useful HOI training recipe plus a genuinely new cue-isolation testbed; gains hold beyond DEHOI, so the inpainting caveat is real but not decisive. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.08514 v1 pith:AT6NRLGV submitted 2026-07-09 cs.CV

Masatoshi Tateno , Alexandros Stergiou , Risa Shinoda , Yoichi Sato , Dima Damen This is my paper

classification cs.CV

keywords hand-objectinteractionegocentricvideo-languagemodelsmaskedvideopre-trainingcueisolationobjectstatechangerobotmanipulationactionrecognition

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

Hand-object interaction understanding fails when models lean on shortcuts: the mere presence of a hand, an object, or kitchen context instead of the actual motion of the hand and the change of the object. This paper shows that existing egocentric video-language models do exactly that, and that a simple training change fixes much of the problem. The change is twofold: deliberately mask hand or object regions so the encoder must reconstruct missing patches from the complementary cue, and attach a decoder that separately predicts hand and object locations, verbs, and nouns so the final video embedding is forced to carry both. The authors also build DEHOI, a test set of inpainted videos that remove either hands or objects, so one can measure how well a model still names the action from the remaining cue alone. With this recipe the model outperforms prior egocentric baselines on the isolated-cue videos, on ordinary action recognition, on object-state change identification, and even on robot-manipulation videos, all without fine-tuning on the isolated setting.

What carries the argument

Hand-object masked training (entity-aware tubelet masking that isolates hand or object regions) together with the HOI-dynamics-aware decoder (learnable hand, object and video queries supervised by boxes, verbs and nouns). The two components force the shared video embedding to remain informative when either cue is missing.

What would settle it

If independent human raters, or a second inpainting method, produce a DEHOI-style set on which the proposed model no longer outperforms the same baselines on isolated-hand and isolated-object verb accuracy, the central claim that the training recipe improves cue-specific reasoning collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A joint training recipe of hand-object-aware masking plus an HOI-dynamics-aware decoder produces video embeddings that exploit hand-centric and object-centric cues more evenly than existing egocentric video-language models, yielding higher zero-shot verb accuracy on both cue-isolated and original videos and transferring to object-state and robot-manipulation benchmarks.

Load-bearing premise

That video inpainting cleanly removes one cue while leaving the complementary cue and the true interaction dynamics intact, so that performance on the resulting videos can be read as pure cue-specific reasoning rather than residual context or artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Models trained this way can still name the action when hands or objects are heavily occluded, improving robustness in real first-person video.
Object-state-change and robot-manipulation recognition improve without extra robot data, because the object-centric pathway generalizes across embodiment.
The CI-HOI protocol itself becomes a diagnostic that future HOI models can use to check whether they have merely learned co-occurrence statistics.
Standard egocentric pre-training on large narrated video can be made less shortcut-prone by the same entity-aware masking schedule.

Reading between the lines

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

The same masking-plus-cue-decoder pattern could be applied to third-person HOI or multi-agent scenes where the “hand” role is played by tools or other people.
If the inpainting assumption holds, DEHOI-style isolation could be turned into a training-time data-augmentation loop rather than only a test-time diagnostic.
Gains on robot videos suggest that object-centric dynamics may be a useful bridge for sim-to-real or human-to-robot transfer without paired human-robot data.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The thing worth knowing is that this paper both diagnoses a real shortcut problem in egocentric VLMs and ships a practical fix plus a new evaluation axis. Existing models lean on co-occurring hands, objects, and kitchen context; the authors force the encoder to reconstruct from partial hand- or object-visible patches and add an HDA decoder that predicts boxes, nouns, and verbs on separate hand/object queries before the video-level embedding. That combination is incremental on VideoMAE-style masking and Helping Hands, but the CI-HOI protocol and DEHOI inpainted testbed are new and useful.

What they do well: zero-shot comparisons on DEHOI against LaViLa, Helping Hands, and EgoVideo (Table 1), clean ablations of masking ratio/balance/strategy and dynamics heads (Table 2), and transfer to STATUS Bench state-change and DROID robot verbs (Table 3) without any fine-tuning on isolated inputs. Gains also appear on original (non-inpainted) videos. Qualitative examples match the numbers. Citations and baselines are fair for the subfield; training stays on EgoClip like the main peers. Artifact controls in Appendix C.3 (background inpaint, blur/warp) show only small shifts.

Soft spots, in proportion: DEHOI and code are not released, so the isolation claim is harder to audit than it should be. Inpainting can leave motion, shadows, or contact geometry; that is the weakest link for attributing DEHOI numbers purely to cue-specific reasoning. I would not call it load-bearing for the whole paper, because STATUS and DROID do not use their inpainting and still improve. Absolute Top-1 numbers remain modest, free parameters (mask ratios, loss weights, LoRA) are the usual ML knobs, and EgoMCQ dips slightly—which they interpret as reduced Ego4D bias rather than a bug. Multi-seed stats would help.

This is for people working on egocentric HOI, object-state change, or robot foundation models who care about shortcut diagnostics. Math and losses are standard; data construction is documented carefully. I would send it to peer review. Worth engaging if you work in this area; release of DEHOI would make it more citable.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that egocentric video-language models often rely on spurious correlations rather than true hand- and object-centric dynamics for HOI recognition. It proposes a training paradigm that combines hand-object masked training (entity-aware tubelet masking of hands, objects, or background, with reconstruction of masked tokens) and an HOI-dynamics-aware (HDA) decoder that produces hand-, object-, and video-level embeddings supervised by bounding-box regression, noun/verb NCE, and EgoNCE narration alignment. To evaluate cue-specific reasoning, it introduces CI-HOI and the DEHOI testbed of 2,652 hand-centric and object-centric videos obtained by ProPainter inpainting of VISOR/SAM2 masks from EPIC-KITCHENS-100. Zero-shot results show gains over LaViLa, Helping Hands, and EgoVideo on DEHOI (Table 1), ablations of masking and heads (Table 2), transfer to STATUS Bench state-change identification and DROID robot verb classification (Table 3), and modest effects on standard EgoMCQ/EK-MIR retrieval.

Significance. If the DEHOI isolation is sufficiently clean, the work supplies a useful diagnostic (CI-HOI) and a practical training recipe that improves cue balance without task-specific fine-tuning, with transfer to object-state change and cross-embodiment robot videos. Strengths include a clear problem framing, systematic ablations (masking ratio, hand:object balance, entity vs background, random vs entity-aware, loss heads), artifact controls in Appendix C.3, and multi-benchmark transfer. The contribution is primarily empirical and diagnostic rather than a new theoretical principle; its lasting value hinges on whether DEHOI becomes a reusable testbed and whether the gains hold under stronger isolation checks.

major comments (3)

Sec. 4 and Appendix C.3: The central attribution of Table 1 gains to improved cue-specific reasoning rests on the assumption that ProPainter + SAM2-propagated VISOR masks cleanly remove one cue while leaving complementary dynamics intact. Appendix C.3 shows only small absolute shifts under background inpainting, blur, and warp for the authors' model, but does not quantify residual leakage (motion blur, shadows, contact geometry, incomplete propagation) nor whether baselines are differentially sensitive to the same artifacts. Without a residual-cue or human-oracle control, the DEHOI numbers cannot cleanly support the claim that the training paradigm improves cue-specific exploitation over existing VLMs.
Table 1 and Sec. 5.4: Absolute Top-1 accuracies remain low (19.2/19.5 hand/object-centric vs 26.9 original), and the absolute gap to Helping Hands is modest (~3.5-5.3 points). Combined with the imperfect isolation concern above, it is not yet clear that the improvements demonstrate robust, balanced hand-object dynamics modeling rather than better tolerance to inpainting-style distribution shift. A stronger isolation validation or an alternative cue-isolation method would make the central claim more load-bearing.
Sec. 3.1-3.2 and Appendix D.3: Both masking and HDA supervision depend on off-the-shelf 100DOH detections (top-2 hands, top-4 objects). Table 5 shows clear degradation under bbox shift/drop, so reported gains partially inherit detector quality and may not transfer when detections are noisy or unavailable. The paper should clarify how much of the improvement is detector-dependent versus representation learning, and whether a detector-free or weakly supervised variant is feasible.

minor comments (5)

Fig. 5: Verb-wise deltas are shown only for classes with >10 samples and |diff|>1%; a full per-verb table or supplementary plot would better support the claim of broad gains on dynamic verbs.
Sec. 5.1: Loss weights (λ_vt=0.2, λ_Noun=0.5, λ_Verb=0.3), LoRA rank/α, and the 1:9 hand:object masking ratio are free parameters; Appendix D.2 ablations help, but the main text should note sensitivity more explicitly.
Table 7: Slight drops on EgoMCQ and mixed mAP/nDCG on EK-MIR should be discussed more carefully as a possible trade-off against Ego4D-specific shortcuts rather than left as a brief remark.
Notation: Hand/object tubelet overlap threshold (0.5) and the definition of B_h / B_o in Sec. 3.1 could be stated more formally; a short pseudocode block would improve reproducibility.
Related work: Brief comparison to other motion- or entity-guided masking (e.g., MGMAE, text-guided MAE) would better situate the hand-object masking contribution.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: empirical training/evaluation paper with independent losses and zero-shot external benchmarks; no derivation reduces to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

This is a standard empirical computer-vision paper. The claimed improvements come from (i) hand–object masked reconstruction on EgoClip plus (ii) an HDA decoder with auxiliary box/noun/verb losses and EgoNCE video–text alignment (Eqs. 1–5). These objectives are ordinary multi-task losses; none is defined in terms of the DEHOI, STATUS Bench, or DROID metrics that are later reported. Evaluation is strictly zero-shot: models never see the inpainted DEHOI videos (or STATUS/DROID labels) during training, and the same frozen video-level embedding is used for all tables. Initialization from the Helping Hands decoder checkpoint is ordinary transfer learning, not a self-citation that forces the result; Helping Hands has no author overlap and is treated as a baseline that the new components improve upon. There is no fitted parameter that is later re-labeled a “prediction,” no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, and no renaming of a known empirical pattern. The only load-bearing modeling choice is the construction of DEHOI via ProPainter inpainting, but that is an evaluation design assumption, not a circular derivation step. Consequently the central claim stands or falls on ordinary empirical comparison and does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on standard contrastive and reconstruction losses, an external HOI detector, video-inpainting quality, and a handful of hand-chosen hyperparameters (masking ratio, loss weights, LoRA rank). No new physical entities are postulated; the invented constructs are the evaluation protocol and the architectural modules.

free parameters (5)

masking ratio τ = 0.5
Set to 0.5 (ablated at 0.75); controls how much of the hand/object/background is dropped during training.
hand:object masking probability balance = 0.1:0.9
Set to 1:9 under the entity-centric strategy; ablated in Table 2c.
entity vs background masking probability = 0.8 / 0.2
80 % entity-centric / 20 % background; ablated in Table 2d.
loss weights λ_vt, λ_Noun, λ_Verb = 0.2 / 0.5 / 0.3
Set to 0.2 / 0.5 / 0.3; further ablated in Appendix Table 6.
LoRA rank and α = rank=8, α=4
Rank 8, α=4 applied to backbone and decoder attention layers.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Off-the-shelf 100DOH detector supplies sufficiently accurate hand and manipulated-object boxes for both masking and HDA supervision.
Invoked throughout Sec. 3.1–3.2 and Appendix A; quality stress-tested only lightly in Appendix D.3.
domain assumption Video inpainting with ProPainter after SAM2 mask propagation removes the target cue without introducing artifacts that dominate the performance signal.
Core premise of DEHOI construction (Sec. 4); partially checked by artifact ablations in Appendix C.3.
ad hoc to paper Verb prediction from isolated hand- or object-centric video (given the object name) is a valid proxy for cue-specific HOI dynamics reasoning.
Defines the CI-HOI task itself (Sec. 4).
domain assumption Standard InfoNCE / EgoNCE and DETR-style Hungarian matching are appropriate supervision for learning complementary hand- and object-centric embeddings.
Used in Sec. 3.2 equations (1)–(4).

invented entities (3)

CI-HOI evaluation protocol
purpose: Quantify a model’s ability to predict action verbs from hand-only or object-only visual cues.
New diagnostic introduced in Sec. 4; no prior benchmark isolates the two cues this way.
DEHOI testbed
purpose: Provide 2 652 pairs of inpainted hand-centric and object-centric videos for CI-HOI.
Constructed from EK-100 + VISOR via SAM2 + ProPainter; released only as description, not as public data in the manuscript.
HOI-dynamics-aware (HDA) decoder
purpose: Produce separate hand-centric, object-centric and video-level embeddings supervised by boxes, verbs and nouns.
Architectural extension of Helping Hands object-aware decoder (Sec. 3.2).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Do Egocentric Video-Language Models Capture Both Hand- and Object-Centric Cues?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AT6NRLGV

@misc{pith2026260708514,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Do Egocentric Video-Language Models Capture Both Hand- and Object-Centric Cues?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AT6NRLGV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08514}
}

read the original abstract

Hand-object interaction (HOI) recognition requires capturing both hand manipulations and object transformations. However, existing video-language models often fall into shortcuts by relying on spurious correlations among hands, objects, or environmental context, rather than reasoning from the appearance and dynamics of hands and objects themselves. To address this limitation, we propose a new learning paradigm that combines (i) hand-object masked training, which enables robust reasoning from partial hand or object observations, and (ii) an HOI-dynamics-aware decoder that explicitly learns hand- and object-centric embeddings through auxiliary predictions of their locations and semantics, enhancing sensitivity to both cues. To systematically evaluate such cue-specific reasoning, we introduce Cue-Isolated HOI (CI-HOI), a new evaluation that assesses models' ability to predict actions from hand- and object-related cues independently. To enable CI-HOI, we curate the DEHOI testbed, which separates hand- and object-related observations for disentangled HOI evaluation through inpainting. Using DEHOI, we demonstrate both quantitatively and qualitatively that our training strategy exploits hand- and object-centric information more effectively than existing models. Our approach improves over existing models on DEHOI, standard action recognition, object state recognition, and even robot manipulation action recognition, leading to more robust HOI understanding.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08514 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Cue-Isolated HOI. CI-HOI requires verb prediction representing HOI dynamics from isolated hand- or object-related observations. In this example, recognition failure can be attributed to the incorrect recognition of dough transformation. underlying interactions (e.g., in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Hand-object masked training. Similar to MAE, input visual patches are masked and reconstructed, while masking strategy explicitly targets hand- and object-centric regions or background regions. token embeddings zi = proj(Pi) ∈ R D. Tokens are dropped given a set of indixes M ⊂ {1, . . . , N} randomly sampled with mask ratio r = |M|/N resulting in V = {1, . . . , N} \M visible tokens. The encoder f embeds only visib… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Hand-object masking strategy. H and O denote sets of hand and object tubelet indices, respectively. R denotes set of randomly selected tubelet indices. M denotes final set of tubelets to mask. the spatial location and t indexes the temporal segment. We group tokens that share the same spatial location across time into a spatial tubelet Ts, i.e., Ts = {p(t,s) | t = 1, . . . , T /pt}. Let R (t) s denote the spatial re… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Training HOI-dynamics-aware (HDA) decoder. Hand- and object-centric queries cross-attend to encoded visual patches to produce cue-specific embeddings, supervised by hand/object locations and semantics. The video-level embedding interacts with these embeddings and visu…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Qualitative results on cuespecific videos from DEHOI with results on original videos. Our model correctly recognizes underlying dynamics from either hand or object observations, whereas existing models rely on spurious hand/object presence. thereby degrading perfor…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Top-50 noun distribution in DEHOI. C.3 Impact of Artifacts We evaluate the effect of artifacts on CI-HOI evaluation since the inpainting process might create artifacts on videos. We test multiple settings, including background inpainting and additional blur/warping art…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Top-50 verb distribution in DEHOI. Original Inpainted Inpaint BG Blur Warping videos and language, predictions are made by computing the cosine similarity between the video embedding and the text embeddings of all possible interaction descriptions for the target objec…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Qualitative results of State Change Identification task in STATUS Bench [32]. Prediction Helping Hands: Ours: ✅ remove the lid from black pot on the right side of the stove ❌ cover the lid from black pot on the right side of the stove Helping Hands: Ours: ✅ hang the ob…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Qualitative results of action recognition from DROID [14] videos [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

[1]

In: European conference on computer vision

Carion, N., Massa, F., Synnaeve, G., Usunier, N., Kirillov, A., Zagoruyko, S.: End- to-end object detection with transformers. In: European conference on computer vision. pp. 213–229. Springer (2020)

work page 2020
[2]

In: ECCV

Damen, D., Doughty, H., Farinella, G.M., Fidler, S., Furnari, A., Kazakos, E., Moltisanti, D., Munro, J., Perrett, T., Price, W., et al.: Scaling egocentric vision: The epic-kitchens dataset. In: ECCV. pp. 720–736 (2018)

work page 2018
[3]

International Journal of Computer Vision130(1), 33–55 (2022)

Damen, D., Doughty, H., Farinella, G.M., Furnari, A., Kazakos, E., Ma, J., Molti- santi, D., Munro, J., Perrett, T., Price, W., et al.: Rescaling egocentric vision: Collection, pipeline and challenges for epic-kitchens-100. International Journal of Computer Vision130(1), 33–55 (2022)

work page 2022
[4]

NeurIPS35, 13745–13758 (2022)

Darkhalil, A., Shan, D., Zhu, B., Ma, J., Kar, A., Higgins, R., Fidler, S., Fouhey, D., Damen, D.: Epic-kitchens visor benchmark: Video segmentations and object relations. NeurIPS35, 13745–13758 (2022)

work page 2022
[5]

In: European Conference on Computer Vision

Fan, D., Wang, J., Liao, S., Zhang, Z., Bhat, V., Li, X.: Text-guided video masked autoencoder. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 282–298. Springer (2024)

work page 2024
[6]

In: ICCV

Fan, D., Wang, J., Liao, S., Zhu, Y., Bhat, V., Santos-Villalobos, H., MV, R., Li, X.: Motion-guided masking for spatiotemporal representation learning. In: ICCV. pp. 5619–5629 (2023)

work page 2023
[7]

NeurIPS35, 35946–35958 (2022)

Feichtenhofer, C., Li, Y., He, K., et al.: Masked autoencoders as spatiotemporal learners. NeurIPS35, 35946–35958 (2022)

work page 2022
[8]

In: WACV

Gouidis, F., Patkos, T., Argyros, A., Plexousakis, D.: Leveraging knowledge graphs for zero-shot object-agnostic state classification. In: WACV. pp. 8637–8648 (2025)

work page 2025

Show all 40 references

[9]

something something

Goyal, R., Ebrahimi Kahou, S., Michalski, V., Materzynska, J., Westphal, S., Kim, H., Haenel, V., Fruend, I., Yianilos, P., Mueller-Freitag, M., et al.: The" something something" video database for learning and evaluating visual common sense. In: ICCV. pp. 5842–5850 (2017)

2017
[10]

In: CVPR

Grauman, K., Westbury, A., Byrne, E., Chavis, Z., Furnari, A., Girdhar, R., Ham- burger, J., Jiang, H., Liu, M., Liu, X., et al.: Ego4d: Around the world in 3,000 hours of egocentric video. In: CVPR. pp. 18995–19012 (2022)

2022
[11]

In: CVPR

Hong, X., Lan, Y., Pang, L., Guo, J., Cheng, X.: Transformation driven visual reasoning. In: CVPR. pp. 6903–6912 (2021)

2021
[12]

ICLR1(2), 3 (2022)

Hu, E.J., Shen, Y., Wallis, P., Allen-Zhu, Z., Li, Y., Wang, S., Wang, L., Chen, W., et al.: Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. ICLR1(2), 3 (2022)

2022
[13]

In: ICCV

Huang, B., Zhao, Z., Zhang, G., Qiao, Y., Wang, L.: Mgmae: Motion guided mask- ing for video masked autoencoding. In: ICCV. pp. 13493–13504 (2023)

2023
[14]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12945 (2024)

Khazatsky, A., Pertsch, K., Nair, S., Balakrishna, A., Dasari, S., Karamcheti, S., Nasiriany, S., Srirama, M.K., Chen, L.Y., Ellis, K., et al.: Droid: A large-scale in-the-wild robot manipulation dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12945 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[15]

In: ECCV

Li, Y., Liu, M., Rehg, J.M.: In the eye of beholder: Joint learning of gaze and actions in first person video. In: ECCV. pp. 619–635 (2018)

2018
[16]

NeurIPS35, 7575–7586 (2022)

Lin, K.Q., Wang, J., Soldan, M., Wray, M., Yan, R., Xu, E.Z., Gao, D., Tu, R.C., Zhao, W., Kong, W., et al.: Egocentric video-language pretraining. NeurIPS35, 7575–7586 (2022)

2022
[17]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101 (2017)

Loshchilov, I., Hutter, F.: Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101 (2017)

2017 arXiv
[18]

In: WACV

Mandikal, P., Nagarajan, T., Stoken, A., Xue, Z., Grauman, K.: Spoc: Spatially- progressing object state change segmentation in video. In: WACV. pp. 3504–3513 (2026) Do Egocentric VLMs Capture Both Hand- and Object-Centric Cues? 17

2026
[19]

In: ECCV (2018)

Nagarajan, T., Grauman, K.: Attributes as operators: factorizing unseen attribute- object compositions. In: ECCV (2018)

2018
[20]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.00986 (2025)

Pei, B., Huang, Y., Xu, J., Chen, G., He, Y., Yang, L., Wang, Y., Xie, W., Qiao, Y., Wu, F., et al.: Modeling fine-grained hand-object dynamics for egocentric video representation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.00986 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[21]

In: CVPR

Perrett, T., Darkhalil, A., Sinha, S., Emara, O., Pollard, S., Parida, K.K., Liu, K., Gatti, P., Bansal, S., Flanagan, K., et al.: Hd-epic: A highly-detailed egocentric video dataset. In: CVPR. pp. 23901–23913 (2025)

2025
[22]

In: ICCV

Pramanick, S., Song, Y., Nag, S., Lin, K.Q., Shah, H., Shou, M.Z., Chellappa, R., Zhang, P.: Egovlpv2: Egocentric video-language pre-training with fusion in the backbone. In: ICCV. pp. 5285–5297 (2023)

2023
[23]

In: International conference on machine learning

Radford, A., Kim, J.W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., et al.: Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 8748–8763. PmLR (2021)

2021
[24]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00714 (2024)

Ravi, N., Gabeur, V., Hu, Y.T., Hu, R., Ryali, C., Ma, T., Khedr, H., Rädle, R., Rolland, C., Gustafson, L., et al.: Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00714 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[25]

In: CVPR

Saini, N., Pham, K., Shrivastava, A.: Disentangling visual embeddings for at- tributes and objects. In: CVPR. pp. 13658–13667 (2022)

2022
[26]

In: CVPR

Saini, N., Wang, H., Swaminathan, A., Jayasundara, V., He, B., Gupta, K., Shri- vastava, A.: Chop & learn: Recognizing and generating object-state compositions. In: CVPR. pp. 20247–20258 (2023)

2023
[27]

In: CVPR

Shan, D., Geng, J., Shu, M., Fouhey, D.F.: Understanding human hands in contact at internet scale. In: CVPR. pp. 9869–9878 (2020)

2020
[28]

In: CVPR

Souček, T., Alayrac, J.B., Miech, A., Laptev, I., Sivic, J.: Look for the change: Learning object states and state-modifying actions from untrimmed web videos. In: CVPR. pp. 13956–13966 (2022)

2022
[29]

In: CVPR (2023)

Sun, X., Chen, P., Chen, L., Li, C., Li, T.H., Tan, M., Gan, C.: Masked motion encoding for self-supervised video representation learning. In: CVPR (2023)

2023
[30]

In: WACV

Tateno, M., Yagi, T., Furuta, R., Sato, Y.: Learning multiple object states from actions via large language models. In: WACV. pp. 9555–9565. IEEE (2025)

2025
[31]

NeurIPS35, 10078–10093 (2022)

Tong, Z., Song, Y., Wang, J., Wang, L.: Videomae: Masked autoencoders are data- efficient learners for self-supervised video pre-training. NeurIPS35, 10078–10093 (2022)

2022
[32]

In: Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Multimedia

Ukai, M., Kurita, S., Inoue, N.: Status bench: A rigorous benchmark for evaluating object state understanding in vision-language models. In: Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Multimedia. pp. 4718–4727 (2025)

2025
[33]

In: CVPR

Wang, L., Huang, B., Zhao, Z., Tong, Z., He, Y., Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Qiao, Y.: Videomae v2: Scaling video masked autoencoders with dual masking. In: CVPR. pp. 14549–14560 (2023)

2023
[34]

Xu, B., Wang, Z., Du, Y., Song, Z., Zheng, S., Jin, Q.: Do egocentric video- language models truly understand hand-object interactions? arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17719 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[35]

In: CVPR

Xue, Z., Ashutosh, K., Grauman, K.: Learning object state changes in videos: An open-world perspective. In: CVPR. pp. 18493–18503 (2024)

2024
[36]

In: ICCV

Zameni, P., Shen, Y., Elhamifar, E.: Moscato: Predicting multiple object state change through actions. In: ICCV. pp. 11600–11611 (2025)

2025
[37]

In: ICCV

Zhang, C., Gupta, A., Zisserman, A.: Helping hands: An object-aware ego-centric video recognition model. In: ICCV. pp. 13901–13912 (2023) 18 M. Tateno et al

2023
[38]

In: CVPR

Zhao, Y., Misra, I., Krähenbühl, P., Girdhar, R.: Learning video representations from large language models. In: CVPR. pp. 6586–6597 (2023)

2023
[39]

In: ICCV

Zhou, S., Li, C., Chan, K.C., Loy, C.C.: Propainter: Improving propagation and transformer for video inpainting. In: ICCV. pp. 10477–10486 (2023)

2023
[40]

In: Proceedings of the 27th acm international conference on multimedia

Zhuo, T., Cheng, Z., Zhang, P., Wong, Y., Kankanhalli, M.: Explainable video action reasoning via prior knowledge and state transitions. In: Proceedings of the 27th acm international conference on multimedia. pp. 521–529 (2019) Do Egocentric VLMs Capture Both Hand- and Object-...

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed July 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

In: European conference on computer vision

Carion, N., Massa, F., Synnaeve, G., Usunier, N., Kirillov, A., Zagoruyko, S.: End- to-end object detection with transformers. In: European conference on computer vision. pp. 213–229. Springer (2020)

work page 2020

[2] [2]

In: ECCV

Damen, D., Doughty, H., Farinella, G.M., Fidler, S., Furnari, A., Kazakos, E., Moltisanti, D., Munro, J., Perrett, T., Price, W., et al.: Scaling egocentric vision: The epic-kitchens dataset. In: ECCV. pp. 720–736 (2018)

work page 2018

[3] [3]

International Journal of Computer Vision130(1), 33–55 (2022)

Damen, D., Doughty, H., Farinella, G.M., Furnari, A., Kazakos, E., Ma, J., Molti- santi, D., Munro, J., Perrett, T., Price, W., et al.: Rescaling egocentric vision: Collection, pipeline and challenges for epic-kitchens-100. International Journal of Computer Vision130(1), 33–55 (2022)

work page 2022

[4] [4]

NeurIPS35, 13745–13758 (2022)

Darkhalil, A., Shan, D., Zhu, B., Ma, J., Kar, A., Higgins, R., Fidler, S., Fouhey, D., Damen, D.: Epic-kitchens visor benchmark: Video segmentations and object relations. NeurIPS35, 13745–13758 (2022)

work page 2022

[5] [5]

In: European Conference on Computer Vision

Fan, D., Wang, J., Liao, S., Zhang, Z., Bhat, V., Li, X.: Text-guided video masked autoencoder. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 282–298. Springer (2024)

work page 2024

[6] [6]

In: ICCV

Fan, D., Wang, J., Liao, S., Zhu, Y., Bhat, V., Santos-Villalobos, H., MV, R., Li, X.: Motion-guided masking for spatiotemporal representation learning. In: ICCV. pp. 5619–5629 (2023)

work page 2023

[7] [7]

NeurIPS35, 35946–35958 (2022)

Feichtenhofer, C., Li, Y., He, K., et al.: Masked autoencoders as spatiotemporal learners. NeurIPS35, 35946–35958 (2022)

work page 2022

[8] [8]

In: WACV

Gouidis, F., Patkos, T., Argyros, A., Plexousakis, D.: Leveraging knowledge graphs for zero-shot object-agnostic state classification. In: WACV. pp. 8637–8648 (2025)

work page 2025