Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

ViaRL: Adaptive Temporal Grounding via Visual Iterated Amplification Reinforcement Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ViaRL claims that rule-based reinforcement learning can train a frame selector from downstream answer accuracy, and that alternating training cycles with the answer model lift long-video QA with only eight frames.

desk verdict The idea is genuinely new and the full system works, but the paper never isolates the RL from the answer-model SFT, so the headline gains are not attributable to the proposed mechanism. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15447 v1 pith:R4RRTFCJ submitted 2025-05-21 cs.CV cs.AI

Ziqiang Xu , Qi Dai , Tian Xie , Yifan Yang , Kai Qiu , DongDong Chen , Zuxuan Wu , Chong Luo This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords temporalgroundingframeselectionrule-basedreinforcementlearningvideoquestionansweringiteratedamplificationmultimodallargelanguagemodelslong-videounderstandingNeedleQA
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 claims that a video system can learn which frames matter for a question without any human frame-level annotation, by treating the downstream answer model's correctness as a reward and training a lightweight frame selector with rule-based reinforcement learning. On top of that, it proposes alternating cycles of training: first improve the selector against a fixed answer model, then freeze the selector and fine-tune the answer model on the chosen frames, repeating until both improve together. Evaluated with Qwen2.5-VL on VideoMME, LVBench, and MLVU, the method raises average accuracy over the uniform-sampling baseline with only eight selected frames; the largest gain is on MLVU Needle QA, where accuracy increases from 58.6 to 73.5. If this holds, frame selection for video QA can be scaled without expensive pseudo-label pipelines, and query-driven temporal grounding can be trained end-to-end from task success.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a two-model video chain-of-thought pipeline: a lightweight selector M1 that reads a question plus T candidate frames (with painted numerical IDs) and emits a reasoning trace plus N indices, and an answer model M2 that receives the selected frames and answers. The policy update uses a clipped objective with advantage normalization (REINFORCE++), and the reward is rule-based: format correctness, valid index list, downstream answer match, and a response-length bonus. The iterated amplification loop freezes one model while training the other, cycling between selector RL and answer-model instruction tuning.

What would settle it

Measure, on MLVU Needle QA, how often the ground-truth needle segment appears among the T=128 candidate frames the selector is allowed to choose from. If the needle is missing from the candidate pool for a substantial fraction of questions, the reported Needle QA gain cannot come from selection skill on those items, and the method's ceiling is set by candidate coverage rather than by the learned selector.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

ViaRL's central claim is that rule-based reinforcement learning can optimize temporal grounding in intention-driven video understanding, using the answer accuracy of a downstream multimodal LLM as the only semantic reward. The frame selector is trained to output a fixed number of frame indices among T candidates; reward is a sum of format, index-validity, answer-correctness, and response-length terms, with REINFORCE++ as the policy optimizer. The iterated amplification loop then alternates RL for the selector with instruction tuning of the answer model. In the reported experiments, Qwen2.5-VL-7B with ViaRL improves VideoMME without subtitles from 52.9 to 57.3, LVBench from 32.3 to 36.9, MLVU M-Avg from 54.5 to 58.2, and MLVU Needle QA from 58.6 to 73.5, using eight frames in all cases. The paper presents this as evidence that answer-accuracy reward plus alternating refinement is a scalable substitute for hand-annotated or pseudo-labeled frame selection.

Load-bearing premise

The 128 candidate frames given to the selector must actually contain the frames needed to answer the question; if the relevant moment is absent from the candidate pool, no reward can teach the selector to pick it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Using only 8 selected frames, ViaRL matches or exceeds models that use 96 or 128 frames on Needle QA, so frame selection can substitute for raw frame count in long-video QA.
  • The alternating selector/answer-model loop yields consistent gains across VideoMME, LVBench, and MLVU, implying the same reward signal transfers across different question types and video lengths.
  • Because the reward is rule-based and does not need human frame labels, the same recipe can be applied to new video domains without annotation effort.
  • Improvements concentrate in the first cycles, so the practical benefit of multi-cycle training is mostly realized early; later cycles give diminishing returns.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the method's ceiling is set by how the 128 candidate frames are produced; extending the same reward to train candidate generation or to adapt T per video would be a natural next step.
  • Editorial inference: since the reward is downstream answer accuracy, the selector is tuned to the specific answer model it is trained with; switching the answer model may require retraining the selector.
  • Editorial inference: the Needle QA result suggests the same approach could be applied to surveillance, sports, or archival video search, where queries target brief moments buried in long recordings.
  • Editorial inference: an oracle experiment that compares the selector's chosen frames against random frames and against frames known to contain the needle would separate selection skill from candidate coverage as the driver of the reported gains.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces ViaRL, a two-model video understanding pipeline in which a lightweight frame selector (Qwen2.5-VL-3B) is trained by rule-based reinforcement learning using the downstream answer model's accuracy as the reward, and the downstream answer model (Qwen2.5-VL-7B) is then instruction-tuned on the selected frames. The two are trained in alternating cycles, termed Visual Iterated Amplification. The method is evaluated on VideoMME, LVBench, and MLVU, with the headline result that eight-frame ViaRL improves VideoMME w/o subtitle from 52.9 to 57.3, LVBench from 32.3 to 36.9, MLVU M-Avg from 54.5 to 58.2, and MLVU Needle QA from 58.6 to 73.5.

Significance. The idea of replacing pseudo-label supervision or heuristics for frame selection with a rule-based RL signal driven by downstream answer accuracy is timely and potentially impactful. The Needle QA improvement is large and directionally coherent with the temporal-grounding claim. The paper also demonstrates a clean alternating-training framework that is easy to reproduce from the description. However, the current evidence does not isolate the RL contribution from the effect of the answer-model instruction tuning, and the absence of comparisons to the frame-selection baselines named in Related Work makes the claimed superiority difficult to assess. If the missing controls are provided, the contribution would be significant for the video CoT and efficient video understanding communities.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.4, Tables 1-2] The central attribution claim is not supported by the present experiments. Table 1 compares the untrained Qwen2.5-VL baseline with the full ViaRL system after two cycles, which includes two rounds of instruction tuning of the answer model (M2) on 8k LLaVA-Video samples. The only ablation that isolates the selector RL is Table 2 at cycle-1 stage-1, showing VideoMME w/o sub. 54.0 vs. 52.9 baseline, i.e., +1.1. The remaining +3.3 to 57.3 in Table 1, and the Needle QA jump from 58.6 to 73.5, could come from M2 instruction tuning, the second cycle, or the interaction. An experiment that trains M2 alone on the same 8k instruction-tuning samples with uniform 8-frame inputs, keeping the selector fixed or absent, is required to attribute the headline gains to the RL-trained selector.
  2. [§2, Table 1] The paper discusses several frame-selection baselines (Hu et al., AKS, CoS, Frame-Voyager) in Related Work but does not include any of them in the main results. The abstract and Section 4.2 claim consistent superiority over strong baselines, yet Table 1 only compares against generic video-language models without explicit frame selection. Without direct comparison to these methods on at least one benchmark, the claim that ViaRL outperforms prior frame-selection approaches remains unsubstantiated.
  3. [§3.1, §4.1] The candidate-pool recall ceiling is never analyzed. The selector can only output indices from the T=128 candidate frames, and the paper does not specify how these candidates are generated (e.g., uniform sampling) or measure the probability that the relevant 'needle' frame is included in the pool for Needle QA. If uniform sampling misses the relevant segment, the attainable accuracy is bounded regardless of selector quality, and the reported 73.5 score may already be near that ceiling. The authors should report the oracle upper bound (accuracy when the selector is given the correct frame, or when all frames are candidates) and the recall of the candidate pool on Needle QA.
  4. [§4.1, Tables 1-2] No error bars or multiple-seed results are reported. Rule-based RL with a 3B selector is stochastic in both reward assignment and policy updates, and the observed differences are small enough (e.g., +1.1 in the isolated ablation) that variance across runs could change the conclusions. At least three independent runs with mean and standard deviation should be reported for the main results and the key ablation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2 vs. Table 1] The prose states that Qwen2.5-VL scores 51.9 for medium and 47.2 for long videos, while Table 1 lists 50.6 and 46.3 for the same baseline. These numbers should be reconciled; the 51.9 and 47.2 values appear in Table 2's SFT row and in the Section 4.3 discussion, so this is likely a copy-paste error.
  2. [§3.3] The sentence 'The system prompt, illustrated in 3.3' should read 'illustrated in Section 3.3' or 'shown in Figure 1', and the cross-reference should be fixed.
  3. [Appendix B, Figures 5-7] Several selector outputs use inconsistent index-list formats (e.g., '5, 11, 17...', '{4, 6, 9...}', '[47, 52...]') whereas the prompt requires <index> list format. This is cosmetic but should be cleaned for clarity.
  4. [§4.3] The phrase 'average accuracy decreasing from 51.9% to 50.5%' uses percent signs inconsistently with Table 2, where scores are reported without units. Please unify the notation.
  5. [References] Reference [20] (AI 2027) is a non-archival website; if it is used as a motivation, please provide a stable citation or clarify that it is a blog post rather than a peer-reviewed source.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reward/evaluation overlap is the intended training objective, and the Table 1 gains, while possibly confounded by M2 instruction tuning, are not circularly derived.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that rule-based RL can train a frame selector using downstream answer accuracy as reward (Eq. 3, S_answer = 2 if the answer fully matches the ground truth, 0 otherwise). This is the explicit objective function, not a hidden equivalence: the selector is scored on whether the MLLM's answer is correct, and the benchmarks measure the same answer accuracy, but the training signal and the evaluation metric sharing a goal is the intended mechanism, not a reduction of the derivation to its inputs. The only selector-isolating experiment, Table 2, reports 54.0 vs. the 52.9 baseline at cycle-1 stage-1, so the RL step has independent, non-tautological content; Table 1's larger numbers include two cycles with M2 instruction tuning, and the absence of an M2-only control is a legitimate attribution weakness but not a circularity, since the claim is about the full ViaRL system and no equation or citation defines the reported gain in terms of the reward itself. No load-bearing self-citations, imported uniqueness theorems, or ansatz-smuggling citations are present; the paper's own limitation statements about 8-frame capacity and imperfect answer models are caveats, not circular dependencies. The candidate-pool ceiling (T=128) bounds what the selector can achieve but does not make the method self-referential. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity concerns.

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

The method's contribution rests on several unverified design choices: reward weights, the candidate frame pool, and the trust that downstream accuracy is a sufficient training signal. These are not derived from data or theory; they are assumptions inherited from prior work or chosen by hand.

free parameters (5)
  • Selected frame count N = 8
    Chosen by hand as the default number of frames the selector outputs; the frame index reward requires exactly N indices (Section 4.1).
  • Candidate frame count T = 128
    Uniform candidate pool size; the selector can only pick among T frames, which bounds achievable grounding (Section 4.1).
  • Answer reward weight = 2.0
    Hand-set reward magnitude for a correct downstream answer (Equation 3), relative to format and index rewards of 1.0 and length reward of 0.2; no tuning justification is provided.
  • Length reward bounds = l_min=80, l_max=512
    Set 'according to the observation of the curve of response length varying with time' (Section 3.3), an ad hoc post-hoc choice.
  • RL coefficients beta and epsilon = 1e-3, 0.2
    Standard REINFORCE++ hyperparameters chosen by hand; no sensitivity study is reported (Section 4.1).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Answer accuracy of the downstream MLLM is a valid and sufficient reward for frame relevance
    The entire RL signal is S_answer = 2 if MLLM(Q,F_s) matches GT (Equation 3). This assumes frame selection quality is monotonically reflected in downstream accuracy; the sparse 0/2 reward may be noisy.
  • domain assumption MLLMs can reliably read numeric identifiers painted on frames and map them to serial numbers
    ViaRL relies on NumPro-style visual indices for the selector to output frame indices; if the base model cannot reliably read the painted numbers, the index reward cannot be satisfied. Section 3.2.
  • domain assumption The T=128 candidate frames contain the frames necessary to answer the query
    The selector chooses only among candidate frames; if relevant content is missing, no training can recover it. The paper does not measure candidate recall. Sections 3.1 and 4.1.
  • standard math REINFORCE++ and the clipped surrogate objective are valid for training an MLLM policy
    The policy gradient objective (Equations 5-7) is borrowed from prior work; standard but unverified here.
  • domain assumption The LLaVA-Video-178K subset is representative of benchmark distributions
    RL and instruction tuning data are sampled from LLaVA-Video-178K; generalization to VideoMME, LVBench, and MLVU depends on this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ViaRL: Adaptive Temporal Grounding via Visual Iterated Amplification Reinforcement Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R4RRTFCJ

@misc{pith2026250515447,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ViaRL: Adaptive Temporal Grounding via Visual Iterated Amplification Reinforcement Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R4RRTFCJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15447}
}
read the original abstract

Video understanding is inherently intention-driven-humans naturally focus on relevant frames based on their goals. Recent advancements in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have enabled flexible query-driven reasoning; however, video-based frameworks like Video Chain-of-Thought lack direct training signals to effectively identify relevant frames. Current approaches often rely on heuristic methods or pseudo-label supervised annotations, which are both costly and limited in scalability across diverse scenarios. To overcome these challenges, we introduce ViaRL, the first framework to leverage rule-based reinforcement learning (RL) for optimizing frame selection in intention-driven video understanding. An iterated amplification strategy is adopted to perform alternating cyclic training in the video CoT system, where each component undergoes iterative cycles of refinement to improve its capabilities. ViaRL utilizes the answer accuracy of a downstream model as a reward signal to train a frame selector through trial-and-error, eliminating the need for expensive annotations while closely aligning with human-like learning processes. Comprehensive experiments across multiple benchmarks, including VideoMME, LVBench, and MLVU, demonstrate that ViaRL consistently delivers superior temporal grounding performance and robust generalization across diverse video understanding tasks, highlighting its effectiveness and scalability. Notably, ViaRL achieves a nearly 15\% improvement on Needle QA, a subset of MLVU, which is required to search a specific needle within a long video and regarded as one of the most suitable benchmarks for evaluating temporal grounding.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.15447 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overall architecture of our approach. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of our Visual Iterated Amplification System im [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. ViaRL improves the baseline MLLMs for video understanding. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance of our ViaRL over multiple cycles and stages, attributing to the intertwined [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization across diverse scenarios on VideoMME. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization across diverse scenarios on LVBench. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization across diverse scenarios on MLVU. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Efficient Frame Selection for Long Videos at Test Time with Attention-Based MLLM Selectors

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Attention maps from a small MLLM can serve as a training-free, query-conditioned frame selector, improving long-video QA accuracy under fixed frame budgets.

  2. Phi-Ground Tech Report: Advancing Perception in GUI Grounding

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Phi-Ground models achieve state-of-the-art click accuracy on five GUI grounding benchmarks for models under 10B parameters using a 40M-sample training recipe with text-first inputs, random-resize augmentation, uniform...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Back to basics: Revisiting reinforce style optimization for learning from human feedback in llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14740, 2024

    Arash Ahmadian, Chris Cremer, Matthias Gallé, Marzieh Fadaee, Julia Kreutzer, Olivier Pietquin, Ahmet Üstün, and Sara Hooker. Back to basics: Revisiting reinforce style optimization for learning from human feedback in llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14740, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Shuai Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, Sibo Song, Kai Dang, Peng Wang, Shijie Wang, Jun Tang, et al. Qwen2. 5-vl technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13923, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Sharegpt4video: Improving video understanding and generation with better captions.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:19472– 19495, 2024

    Lin Chen, Xilin Wei, Jinsong Li, Xiaoyi Dong, Pan Zhang, Yuhang Zang, Zehui Chen, Haodong Duan, Zhenyu Tang, Li Yuan, et al. Sharegpt4video: Improving video understanding and generation with better captions.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:19472– 19495, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    How far are we to gpt-4v? closing the gap to commercial multimodal models with open-source suites.Science China Information Sciences, 67(12):220101, 2024

    Zhe Chen, Weiyun Wang, Hao Tian, Shenglong Ye, Zhangwei Gao, Erfei Cui, Wenwen Tong, Kongzhi Hu, Jiapeng Luo, Zheng Ma, et al. How far are we to gpt-4v? closing the gap to commercial multimodal models with open-source suites.Science China Information Sciences, 67(12):220101, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Supervising strong learners by amplifying weak experts.arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.08575, 2018

    Paul Christiano, Buck Shlegeris, and Dario Amodei. Supervising strong learners by amplifying weak experts.arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.08575, 2018

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Video-ccam: Enhancing video-language understanding with causal cross-attention masks for short and long videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.14023, 2024

    Jiajun Fei, Dian Li, Zhidong Deng, Zekun Wang, Gang Liu, and Hui Wang. Video-ccam: Enhancing video-language understanding with causal cross-attention masks for short and long videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.14023, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Video-r1: Reinforcing video reasoning in mllms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21776, 2025

    Kaituo Feng, Kaixiong Gong, Bohao Li, Zonghao Guo, Yibing Wang, Tianshuo Peng, Benyou Wang, and Xiangyu Yue. Video-r1: Reinforcing video reasoning in mllms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21776, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Video-mme: The first-ever comprehensive evaluation benchmark of multi-modal llms in video analysis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.21075, 2024

    Chaoyou Fu, Yuhan Dai, Yongdong Luo, Lei Li, Shuhuai Ren, Renrui Zhang, Zihan Wang, Chenyu Zhou, Yunhang Shen, Mengdan Zhang, et al. Video-mme: The first-ever comprehensive evaluation benchmark of multi-modal llms in video analysis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.21075, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Reinforce++: A simple and efficient approach for aligning large language models

    Jian Hu. Reinforce++: A simple and efficient approach for aligning large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.03262, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Cos: Chain-of-shot prompting for long video understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06428, 2025

    Jian Hu, Zixu Cheng, Chenyang Si, Wei Li, and Shaogang Gong. Cos: Chain-of-shot prompting for long video understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06428, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    M-llm based video frame selection for efficient video understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19680, 2025

    Kai Hu, Feng Gao, Xiaohan Nie, Peng Zhou, Son Tran, Tal Neiman, Lingyun Wang, Mubarak Shah, Raffay Hamid, Bing Yin, et al. M-llm based video frame selection for efficient video understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19680, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Llava-next-interleave: Tackling multi-image, video, and 3d in large multimodal models

    Feng Li, Renrui Zhang, Hao Zhang, Yuanhan Zhang, Bo Li, Wei Li, Zejun Ma, and Chunyuan Li. Llava-next-interleave: Tackling multi-image, video, and 3d in large multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07895, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Mvbench: A comprehensive multi-modal video understanding benchmark

    Kunchang Li, Yali Wang, Yinan He, Yizhuo Li, Yi Wang, Yi Liu, Zun Wang, Jilan Xu, Guo Chen, Ping Luo, et al. Mvbench: A comprehensive multi-modal video understanding benchmark. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 22195–22206, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Remax: A simple, effective, and efficient reinforcement learning method for aligning large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10505, 2023

    Ziniu Li, Tian Xu, Yushun Zhang, Zhihang Lin, Yang Yu, Ruoyu Sun, and Zhi-Quan Luo. Remax: A simple, effective, and efficient reinforcement learning method for aligning large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10505, 2023

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Keyvideollm: Towards large-scale video keyframe selection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03104, 2024

    Hao Liang, Jiapeng Li, Tianyi Bai, Xijie Huang, Linzhuang Sun, Zhengren Wang, Conghui He, Bin Cui, Chong Chen, and Wentao Zhang. Keyvideollm: Towards large-scale video keyframe selection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03104, 2024. 10

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    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

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Visual instruction tuning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:34892–34916, 2023

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:34892–34916, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Kangaroo: A powerful video-language model supporting long-context video input.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15542, 2024

    Jiajun Liu, Yibing Wang, Hanghang Ma, Xiaoping Wu, Xiaoqi Ma, Xiaoming Wei, Jianbin Jiao, Enhua Wu, and Jie Hu. Kangaroo: A powerful video-language model supporting long-context video input.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15542, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Hello gpt-4o.https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/, 2024

    OpenAI. Hello gpt-4o.https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Ai 2027.https://ai-2027.com/, 2025

    OpenAI. Ai 2027.https://ai-2027.com/, 2025

    2027

  13. [21]

    Introducing openai o3 and o4-mini

    OpenAI. Introducing openai o3 and o4-mini. https://openai.com/index/ introducing-o3-and-o4-mini/, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. InInternational conference on machine learning, pag...

    2021

  15. [23]

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

    Shuhuai Ren, Linli Yao, Shicheng Li, Xu Sun, and Lu Hou. Timechat: A time-sensitive multimodal large language model for long video understanding. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 14313–14323, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Trust region policy optimization

    John Schulman, Sergey Levine, Pieter Abbeel, Michael Jordan, and Philipp Moritz. Trust region policy optimization. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 1889–1897. PMLR, 2015

    2015

  17. [25]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024

    Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Y Wu, et al. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Video-xl: Extra-long vision language model for hour-scale video understanding

    Yan Shu, Zheng Liu, Peitian Zhang, Minghao Qin, Junjie Zhou, Zhengyang Liang, Tiejun Huang, and Bo Zhao. Video-xl: Extra-long vision language model for hour-scale video understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14485, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Moviechat: From dense token to sparse memory for long video understanding

    Enxin Song, Wenhao Chai, Guanhong Wang, Yucheng Zhang, Haoyang Zhou, Feiyang Wu, Haozhe Chi, Xun Guo, Tian Ye, Yanting Zhang, et al. Moviechat: From dense token to sparse memory for long video understanding. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Patte...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Adaptive keyframe sampling for long video understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.21271, 2025

    Xi Tang, Jihao Qiu, Lingxi Xie, Yunjie Tian, Jianbin Jiao, and Qixiang Ye. Adaptive keyframe sampling for long video understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.21271, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023

    Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Yonghui Wu, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, et al. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Lvbench: An extreme long video understanding benchmark

    Weihan Wang, Zehai He, Wenyi Hong, Yean Cheng, Xiaohan Zhang, Ji Qi, Xiaotao Gu, Shiyu Huang, Bin Xu, Yuxiao Dong, et al. Lvbench: An extreme long video understanding benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08035, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Internvideo2

    Yi Wang, Xinhao Li, Ziang Yan, Yinan He, Jiashuo Yu, Xiangyu Zeng, Chenting Wang, Changlian Ma, Haian Huang, Jianfei Gao, et al. Internvideo2. 5: Empowering video mllms with long and rich context modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12386, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Longvitu: Instruction tuning for long-form video understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.05037, 2025

    Rujie Wu, Xiaojian Ma, Hai Ci, Yue Fan, Yuxuan Wang, Haozhe Zhao, Qing Li, and Yizhou Wang. Longvitu: Instruction tuning for long-form video understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.05037, 2025. 11

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

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

    Yongliang Wu, Xinting Hu, Yuyang Sun, Yizhou Zhou, Wenbo Zhu, Fengyun Rao, Bernt Schiele, and Xu Yang. Number it: Temporal grounding videos like flipping manga.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.10332, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Frame-voyager: Learning to query frames for video large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03226, 2024

    Sicheng Yu, Chengkai Jin, Huanyu Wang, Zhenghao Chen, Sheng Jin, Zhongrong Zuo, Xiaolei Xu, Zhenbang Sun, Bingni Zhang, Jiawei Wu, et al. Frame-voyager: Learning to query frames for video large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03226, 2024

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    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

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Long context transfer from language to vision

    Peiyuan Zhang, Kaichen Zhang, Bo Li, Guangtao Zeng, Jingkang Yang, Yuanhan Zhang, Ziyue Wang, Haoran Tan, Chunyuan Li, and Ziwei Liu. Long context transfer from language to vision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16852, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Video instruction tuning with synthetic data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02713, 2024

    Yuanhan Zhang, Jinming Wu, Wei Li, Bo Li, Zejun Ma, Ziwei Liu, and Chunyuan Li. Video instruction tuning with synthetic data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02713, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Mlvu: A comprehensive benchmark for multi-task long video understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04264, 2024

    Junjie Zhou, Yan Shu, Bo Zhao, Boya Wu, Shitao Xiao, Xi Yang, Yongping Xiong, Bo Zhang, Tiejun Huang, and Zheng Liu. Mlvu: A comprehensive benchmark for multi-task long video understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04264, 2024. 12 A Details of System Prompt System Prompt You a...

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    - Check if the occurrence time is mentioned

    Think about the keywords from the question: - Check if the physical entities are mentioned. - Check if the occurrence time is mentioned. - Check if the place or location is mentioned. - Check if the action is mentioned

  33. [41]

    Provide the appearance reference based on the keywords and video: - Describe the visual appearance of the Nselect frames that are most relevant to the keywords

  34. [42]

    mRNA" and

    Provide the target list: - A list of Nselect frame indices, that the corresponding frames are most helpful to answer the question. Your output should follow this format strictly: <think> thinking about keywords and visual appearance here </think><index> target list here </inde...

    2019

Pith tools

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