Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 51 references

RSVideo: Are Your Vision-Language Models Ready for Remote Sensing Videos?

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read RSVideo-Bench, a new 2,731-question benchmark of UAV and satellite video, finds vision-language models average 29.0% accuracy (69.7% on Video-MME); a proposed training framework lifts this by up to 9.01 points across 26 backbones.

desk verdict A genuinely useful new remote-sensing video QA benchmark with a credible method, but the unverified labels and missing release make independent validation the gate. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02039 v2 pith:S4YLADI3 submitted 2026-08-03 cs.CV

Hongjie Zhou , Shiqin Wang , Haoyang Chen , Haonan Guo , Di Wang , Juhua Liu , Fu Lin , Yong Luo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords remotesensingvideoquestionansweringvision-languagemodelbenchmarkspatiotemporalevidencereinforcementlearningUAVsatellite
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

The paper claims that current vision-language models largely fail at understanding continuous remote-sensing video: on its new benchmark RSVideo-Bench, 26 open-weight models average 29.0% accuracy, compared with 69.7% on the natural-video benchmark Video-MME, a 40.7-point gap. The failures concentrate on small targets, short-lived state changes, and spatial relations defined by roads, buildings, and region boundaries. The paper also introduces a training framework, RSVideo, that first teaches models to attach answers to explicit spatiotemporal evidence and then uses reinforcement learning to select question-relevant visual tokens while compressing background. Trained this way, the same models improve by up to 9.01 absolute points on RSVideo-Bench, reaching 40.63% accuracy with a 27B backbone. If correct, the work provides both a diagnostic benchmark and a training recipe for making video-understanding models attend to sparse evidence in overhead imagery.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is spatiotemporal evidence focusing: each visual token is scored by three signals—global saliency from visual self-attention, question relevance from cross-modal similarity, and temporal change from local inconsistency—plus a coarse time-region cell prior. The model keeps the highest-scoring tokens, compresses the rest into a small set of question-conditioned background slots via cross-attention, and is trained by GRPO with rewards that tie the predicted answer to annotated evidence regions and penalize redundant background. This lets the model operate under a fixed visual-token budget (default 40% of tokens) while preserving the few pixels that matter in remote-sensing frames.

What would settle it

Have an independent team, blind to the gold answers, re-answer a random sample of several hundred RSVideo-Bench items from the released frames and question text alone; if their answers diverge from the gold labels on a substantial fraction of items, the benchmark's premise of uniquely determined answers—and the accuracy numbers built on it—would be undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a unified five-choice video-QA benchmark built from UAV and satellite footage reveals a systematic weakness in vision-language models: they miss sparse spatiotemporal evidence—small targets, brief actions, and scene-constrained spatial relations—that is decisive for remote-sensing video reasoning. The paper further claims that this weakness is trainable. Its RSVideo framework performs evidence-aware supervised fine-tuning on annotated temporal and spatial evidence, then applies GRPO reinforcement learning with rewards for answer correctness, evidence alignment, and background compression under a fixed visual-token budget. In evaluations across 26 open-weight backbones from 1B to 241B parameters, RSVideo improves accuracy on every backbone, with a maximum absolute gain of 9.01% (InternVL3.5-14B) and a top accuracy of 40.63% (Qwen3.6-27B); transfer evaluations on four external video benchmarks also show small but consistent gains.

Load-bearing premise

The whole evaluation rests on the assumption that every RSVideo-Bench question has one answer that is uniquely determined by the released video frames and the question, a judgment enforced only by the paper's internal three-expert review and adjudication process.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the benchmark numbers hold, current general video benchmarks overestimate how ready vision-language models are for overhead, small-target video; any claim of video understanding should be re-checked on remote-sensing video.
  • The 40.7-point gap between RSVideo-Bench and Video-MME gives a concrete target: closing it requires models to recover evidence that occupies few tokens in few frames.
  • The training framework transfers to existing open-weight backbones without changing their architecture, so the evidence-focusing recipe can be applied on top of stronger future base models.
  • The transfer gains on general and aerial video benchmarks suggest that evidence-focused training is not overfit to RSVideo-Bench, though the gains on general video are small.
  • The RSVideo-Instruct training set, with temporal and spatial evidence annotations, is itself a reusable resource for training other methods on remote-sensing video.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension would be to test whether the evidence-scoring signals transfer to other sparse-evidence video domains, such as surveillance or medical video, where the decisive cues are similarly small and short-lived.
  • The paper's 'insufficient evidence' answer option is a useful design; it could be used to measure whether models can abstain when evidence is absent, which may be more important than accuracy for safety-critical remote-sensing decisions.
  • The fixed 40% token budget suggests that much of the video content is redundant for QA; one could push further to see how accuracy changes with even tighter budgets or with budgets adapted per question difficulty.
  • The human-review label determinism is the load-bearing premise; a machine-checkable audit of label uniqueness would make the benchmark's numbers portable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces RSVideo-10K, a remote-sensing video question-answering dataset with 10,773 instances and a locked 2,731-instance test benchmark (RSVideo-Bench) spanning L1 perception and L2 reasoning across 17 tasks. It evaluates 26 open-source and several proprietary vision-language models, reporting a large performance gap on RSVideo-Bench relative to Video-MME (average 29.0% vs 69.7%). It then proposes RSVideo, a two-stage training framework that performs evidence-aware supervised fine-tuning followed by GRPO with evidence-aware rewards, using a fixed visual-token budget to select and compress spatiotemporal evidence. The paper reports consistent accuracy gains across all 26 backbones, with a maximum absolute improvement of 9.01% (InternVL3.5-14B) and a top accuracy of 40.63% (Qwen3.6-27B), plus transfer gains on four external benchmarks.

Significance. If the benchmark labels are reliable, the paper fills a genuine gap: current remote-sensing vision-language benchmarks are image-based or long-temporal, and general video benchmarks do not reproduce overhead viewpoints, small targets, and scene-constrained relations. The reported 40.7% gap is a striking and falsifiable finding, and the proposed evidence-focusing framework is well motivated and evaluated on a broad set of backbones. The paper is unusually thorough in its supporting material: detailed appendix, datasheets, validity audits, hyperparameter sensitivity analyses, and external-transfer evaluations. The main qualification is that the central premise — that every RSVideo-Bench gold answer is uniquely determined by the released frames and question — rests on an internal expert review process and cannot yet be checked externally because the dataset is not released and no inter-annotator statistics are provided.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B.3 / G.6] The benchmark's validity rests on the internal three-expert review and the 'insufficient evidence' rule, but the dataset is not released (G.6: 'The dataset is not yet publicly distributed') and no inter-annotator agreement or external label audit is provided. The validity audit in Table 10 shows that video input contributes to performance, but it does not establish that every gold answer is uniquely determined by the released frames plus question, nor that all distractors are invalid. If a nontrivial fraction of the 2,731 test items are ambiguous or mislabeled, the headline 40.7% gap and the per-backbone gains (including the 9.01% maximum) are not well-defined. Please provide a label-uniqueness audit, a sample of item-level justifications, inter-annotator agreement, and a concrete release plan for the benchmark annotations and evaluation code.
  2. [Tables 2-4 and Appendix E.3-E.8] All numerical results are single-run point estimates without error bars. For a 2,731-item test set, the standard error of a 40% accuracy is about 0.9 percentage points, so differences below roughly 2 points are within one or two standard errors. The claims that RSVideo 'ranks first for every evaluated backbone' and that the reward components are complementary in §5.3 rely on small deltas (e.g., 38.85 vs 39.10 in Table 3, or 40.28 vs 40.63 in Table 18). Please report multiple seeds or confidence intervals, and clarify which configuration choices were made on the validation split.
  3. [Equations (2)-(3) and Appendix D.1] The evidence score fusion weights α_sal, α_rel, α_chg, and α_cell in Eqs. (2)-(3) are never specified, learned, or tuned. These weights determine which visual tokens are retained and compressed, so they are load-bearing for the method's reported behavior and reproducibility. Please state the default values, how they are set (fixed, searched, or learned), and their sensitivity, analogous to the reward-weight analysis in Appendix E.8.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract says 'Codes will be available' but does not mention the dataset; please state explicitly that the benchmark annotations, evaluation scripts, and any redistributable clips will be released at the same point, given that Appendix G.6 currently says the dataset is not yet distributed.
  2. [Section 3.2] There is a typo in the sentence 'To construct this datset' — it should be 'dataset'.
  3. [Figure 1] The average gap of 40.7% should specify which set of models is averaged and whether the average is computed over the identical model set on both Video-MME and RSVideo-Bench.
  4. [Table 1] The header 'Video Coverage' uses the abbreviation 'UA V' in several rows; please expand to 'UAV' for readability, and check the formatting of 'UAVBench / UAVIT-1M'.
  5. [Equation (8)] The gate g_ans is defined as a product of two indicator functions; please clarify in the text that this is a scalar gate for the evidence rewards rather than a reward term itself.
  6. [Appendix D.1] The notation uses N_l for the number of layers and H for the number of heads; consider renaming one of them to avoid confusion with the token-sequence length L.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the benchmark labels are external expert annotations, the method is trained on a separate instruct split and tested on a locked split, and the claimed gains are measured on held-out and external benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The central empirical claims are (i) current VLMs score 29.0% on RSVideo-Bench versus 69.7% on Video-MME, (ii) the proposed RSVideo training improves accuracy by up to 9.01% across backbones, and (iii) gains transfer to external benchmarks. All three are measured results, not quantities derived from the method's own fitted parameters. RSVideo-Bench gold answers come from a human multi-expert annotation and adjudication pipeline (Appendix B.3), not from the model or from the proposed evidence-score equations. Training is performed on RSVideo-Instruct, and evaluation is performed on the locked RSVideo-Bench test split; Appendix E.4 explicitly states that hyperparameters are chosen on the validation split and that RSVideo-Bench is evaluated once after the configuration is fixed. Transfer results on MVBench, Video-MME, UrbanVideo-Bench, and SIS-Bench use external ground-truth labels with no training on those benchmarks, so those gains cannot reduce to RSVideo-Bench labels. The evidence-aware rewards (Eqs. 6-8) use RSVideo-Instruct annotations, and the T-Hit/R-Hit diagnostics measure overlap with RSVideo-Bench evidence annotations; this is a direct measurement of the trained objective on held-out annotations, not a fitted-input-called-prediction loop. The paper cites several prior works with overlapping authors (e.g., refs. 20, 24, 31, 32), but these citations are only background positioning and are not load-bearing for the benchmark design, the method, or the reported numbers; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from them. The main verifiability limitation is that the dataset is not yet publicly distributed (Appendix G.6) and label quality depends on the internal expert review process, but this is a data-release and audit concern rather than a circular derivation. No step in the paper equates a prediction with its input by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on human-validated ground truth and a set of hyperparameters tuned on the validation split. The only unspecified free parameters are the evidence score fusion weights, which are load-bearing for the token selection mechanism. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • eta (time-region cell pooling ratio) = 0.10
    Controls how many top-scoring tokens are aggregated per cell; tuned on RSVideo-Instruct validation (Appendix E.3).
  • rho (visual token budget ratio) = 0.40
    Fixed fraction of visual tokens retained; tuned on validation (Appendix E.4).
  • Reward weights (lambda_ans, lambda_st, lambda_bg, lambda_cost) = 0.40, 0.40, 0.15, 0.05
    Weights for answer correctness, spatiotemporal evidence alignment, background compression, and breadth cost; selected on validation (Table 18).
  • KL coefficient = 0.03
    KL regularization against the E-SFT policy in GRPO; tuned on validation (Table 17).
  • GRPO group size = 4
    Number of sampled responses per question for advantage estimation; tuned on validation (Table 16).
  • Gumbel-sigmoid temperature = 0.7
    Temperature for differentiable token selection; tuned on validation (Table 15).
  • Evidence score fusion weights (alpha_sal, alpha_rel, alpha_chg, alpha_cell) = not specified
    Used in Equations (2) and (3) to combine saliency, relevance, temporal change, and cell prior; no default values are given in the visible text.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math GRPO clipped policy objective and advantage normalization are accepted optimization techniques.
    Invoked in Appendix D.5 as the policy optimization machinery.
  • domain assumption Five-choice accuracy with an 'insufficient evidence' option is a valid measure of video understanding.
    Embedded in the benchmark design (Section 3.1, Appendix C.1); if the protocol itself is flawed, all accuracy numbers lose meaning.
  • domain assumption Human expert annotation and adjudication guarantee gold answers and evidence labels are correct.
    The three-expert review in Appendix B.3 is the sole validation of ground truth; no inter-annotator agreement statistics are reported.
  • domain assumption The eight public video sources and the curated clips are representative of remote-sensing video understanding.
    Appendix A.1 selects sources to expose small targets and temporal events, but coverage of platforms, regions, and conditions is acknowledged as non-exhaustive.
  • ad hoc to paper The fixed visual token budget and the evidence tag format are an effective interface for evidence-focused learning.
    The paper assumes that outputting tags like 'T08-R05' and compressing background to 40% of tokens helps learning; this is a design choice, not an independently verified principle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RSVideo: Are Your Vision-Language Models Ready for Remote Sensing Videos?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S4YLADI3

@misc{pith2026260802039,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RSVideo: Are Your Vision-Language Models Ready for Remote Sensing Videos?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S4YLADI3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02039}
}
read the original abstract

Remote-sensing videos enable real-time observation of changes in target attributes, short-term activities, and scene evolution. They record motion, actions, interactions, and scene changes that cannot be captured by isolated images. Existing models primarily target single images or discrete temporal observations spanning a long time range. However, a unified evaluation setting for assessing vision-language models on continuous remote-sensing video understanding remains lacking. We introduce RSVideo-10K, a remote-sensing video dataset comprising 10,773 instances, 1.47 million frames, and 17.02 hours of footage, containing both unmanned aerial vehicles and satellite platforms. Its fixed evaluation benchmark, RSVideo-Bench, contains 2,731 test instances and evaluates two complementary aspects of remote-sensing video understanding: L1 Perception and L2 Reasoning, spanning seven capability groups and 17 tasks. Evaluations show that current vision-language models still struggle to recover small local evidence, track short-lived states, and use scene-constrained spatial relations. Based on this analysis, we further propose RSVideo, a reinforcement learning framework for small-target spatiotemporal focusing that selects question-relevant regions across frames and suppresses redundant background tokens. RSVideo achieves a maximum absolute improvement of 9.01% with InternVL3.5-14B and attains the highest accuracy of 40.63% with Qwen3.6-27B across 26 open-source vision-language backbones. Codes will be available at https://github.com/HongjieZhou0329/RSVideo.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02039 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Accuracy of representative vision-language models on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of RSVideo-10K. The dataset contains 10,773 five-choice QA instances grounded in 4,629 audited evidence clips [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance of representative vision-language models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (29 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of RSVideo. The visual encoder and text encoder first generate visual tokens and question tokens. RSVideo combines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparison of question-conditioned visual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Complete RSVideo data-construction pipeline. Public videos first pass source registration, decoding, quality screening, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative example for Leaf 01, scene type. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative example for Leaf 02, viewpoint type. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Qualitative example for Leaf 03, spatial relation between static land objects. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Qualitative example for Leaf 04, target identification. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Qualitative example for Leaf 05, target counting. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Qualitative example for Leaf 06, reference-image target localization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Qualitative example for Leaf 07, action recognition. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Qualitative example for Leaf 08, action transition. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Qualitative example for Leaf 09, action counting. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Qualitative example for Leaf 10, environmental constraint reasoning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Qualitative example for Leaf 11, target state inference. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Qualitative example for Leaf 12, main visible activity recognition. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Qualitative example for Leaf 13, disaster evidence monitoring. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Qualitative example for Leaf 14, abnormal behavior. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Qualitative example for Leaf 15, long-term trajectory summary for small moving targets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Qualitative example for Leaf 16, displacement and speed estimation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Qualitative example for Leaf 17, temporal ordering. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Qualitative example for Leaf 18, action-duration comparison. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Qualitative example for Leaf 19, concurrent visibility interval for multiple targets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Qualitative example for Leaf 20, single-event spatiotemporal localization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_26.png]
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Qualitative example for Leaf 21, regional trajectory co-occurrence. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_27.png]
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: Qualitative example for Leaf 22, relation-constrained candidate localization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_28.png]
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: Qualitative example for Leaf 23, reasoned counting of small moving targets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_29.png]
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: Qualitative example for Leaf 24, cross-window constraint satisfiability. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p049_30.png]
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: Qualitative example for Leaf 25, target re-identification after occlusion. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p050_31.png]
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: Qualitative example for Leaf 26, minimal constraint relaxation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p051_32.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Temporal chain of thought: Long- video understanding by thinking in frames

    Anurag Arnab, Ahmet Iscen, Mathilde Caron, Alireza Fathi, and Cordelia Schmid. Temporal chain of thought: Long- video understanding by thinking in frames. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025. 3

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

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

    Shuai Bai, Yuxuan Cai, Ruizhe Chen, Keqin Chen, Xionghui Chen, Zesen Cheng, Lianghao Deng, Wei Ding, Chang Gao, Chunjiang Ge, et al. Qwen3-VL technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631, 2025. 18

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

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

    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. 1, 18

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Okutama-action: An aerial view video dataset for concurrent human action detection

    Mohammadamin Barekatain, Miquel Mart ´ı, Hsueh-Fu Shih, Samuel Murray, Kotaro Nakayama, Yutaka Matsuo, and Hel- mut Prendinger. Okutama-action: An aerial view video dataset for concurrent human action detection. InProceed- ings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, pages 28–35, 2017. 1, 2, 13

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Al Rahhal, Mo- hammad Zuair, and Farid Melgani

    Laila Bashmal, Yakoub Bazi, Mohamad M. Al Rahhal, Mo- hammad Zuair, and Farid Melgani. CapERA: Captioning events in aerial videos.Remote Sensing, 15(8):2139, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    AU-AIR: A multi- modal unmanned aerial vehicle dataset for low altitude traf- fic surveillance

    Ilker Bozcan and Erdal Kayacan. AU-AIR: A multi- modal unmanned aerial vehicle dataset for low altitude traf- fic surveillance. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 8504–8510,

    work page

  7. [7]

    Satel- lite video single object tracking: A systematic review and an oriented object tracking benchmark.ISPRS Journal of Pho- togrammetry and Remote Sensing, 210:212–240, 2024

    Yuzeng Chen, Yuqi Tang, Yi Xiao, Qiangqiang Yuan, Yuwei Zhang, Fengqing Liu, Jiang He, and Liangpei Zhang. Satel- lite video single object tracking: A systematic review and an oriented object tracking benchmark.ISPRS Journal of Pho- togrammetry and Remote Sensing, 210:212–240, 2024. 3, 13

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Video-R1: Rein- forcing video reasoning in MLLMs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21776, 2025

    Kaituo Feng, Kaixiong Gong, Bohao Li, Zonghao Guo, Yibing Wang, Tianshuo Peng, Junfei Wu, Xiaoying Zhang, Benyou Wang, and Xiangyu Yue. Video-R1: Rein- forcing video reasoning in MLLMs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21776, 2025. 7

    arXiv 2025

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Video- MME: The first-ever comprehensive evaluation benchmark of multi-modal LLMs in video analysis

    Chaoyou Fu, Yuhan Dai, Yongdong Luo, et al. Video- MME: The first-ever comprehensive evaluation benchmark of multi-modal LLMs in video analysis. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 24108–24118, 2025. 1, 2, 3, 8

    2025

  2. [10]

    VideoTIR: Ac- curate understanding for long videos with efficient tool- integrated reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.25021,

    Zhe Gao, Shiyu Shen, Taifeng Chai, et al. VideoTIR: Ac- curate understanding for long videos with efficient tool- integrated reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.25021,

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    TEOChat: A large vision-language as- sistant for temporal earth observation data

    Jeremy Andrew Irvin, Emily Ruoyu Liu, Joyce Chuyi Chen, Ines Dormoy, Jinyoung Kim, Samar Khanna, Zhuo Zheng, and Stefano Ermon. TEOChat: A large vision-language as- sistant for temporal earth observation data. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. 3

    2025

  4. [12]

    GeoChat: Grounded large vision-language model for remote sensing

    Kartik Kuckreja, Muhammad Sohail Danish, Muzammal Naseer, Abhijit Das, Salman Khan, and Fahad Shahbaz Khan. GeoChat: Grounded large vision-language model for remote sensing. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 27831– 27840...

    2024

  5. [13]

    LLaV A-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, Zi- wei Liu, and Chunyuan Li. LLaV A-OneVision: Easy visual task transfer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03326, 2024. 1, 18

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    MVBench: A com- prehensive multi-modal video understanding benchmark

    Kunchang Li, Yali Wang, Yinan He, et al. MVBench: A com- prehensive multi-modal video understanding benchmark. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, 2024. 2, 3, 8

    2024

  7. [15]

    Visual object tracking for un- manned aerial vehicles: A benchmark and new motion mod- els

    Siyi Li and Dit-Yan Yeung. Visual object tracking for un- manned aerial vehicles: A benchmark and new motion mod- els. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial In- telligence, 2017. 13 9

    2017

  8. [16]

    Vrsbench: A versatile vision-language benchmark dataset for remote sens- ing image understanding

    Xiang Li, Jian Ding, and Mohamed Elhoseiny. Vrsbench: A versatile vision-language benchmark dataset for remote sens- ing image understanding. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024. 1, 2, 3

    2024

  9. [17]

    UniRS: Unifying multi- temporal remote sensing tasks through vision language mod- els.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.20742, 2024

    Yujie Li, Wenjia Xu, Guangzuo Li, Zijian Yu, Zhiwei Wei, Jiuniu Wang, and Mugen Peng. UniRS: Unifying multi- temporal remote sensing tasks through vision language mod- els.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.20742, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    TempCom- pass: Do video LLMs really understand videos? InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024, pages 8731–8772, Bangkok, Thailand, 2024

    Yuanxin Liu, Shicheng Li, Yi Liu, Yuxiang Wang, Shuhuai Ren, Lei Li, Sishuo Chen, Xu Sun, and Lu Hou. TempCom- pass: Do video LLMs really understand videos? InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024, pages 8731–8772, Bangkok, Thailand, 2024. Associa...

    2024

  11. [19]

    RSVQA: Visual question answering for remote sensing data

    Sylvain Lobry, Diego Marcos, Jesse Murray, and Devis Tuia. RSVQA: Visual question answering for remote sensing data. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 58 (12):8555–8566, 2020. 1, 2, 3

    2020

  12. [20]

    VLRS-Bench: A vision-language reasoning benchmark for remote sensing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.07045, 2026

    Zhiming Luo, Di Wang, Haonan Guo, Jing Zhang, and Bo Du. VLRS-Bench: A vision-language reasoning benchmark for remote sensing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.07045, 2026. 3

    2026 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Ma, Willis Guo, Aditya Agrawal, Ankit Gupta, Paul Pu Liang, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Louis-Philippe Morency

    Martin Q. Ma, Willis Guo, Aditya Agrawal, Ankit Gupta, Paul Pu Liang, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Louis-Philippe Morency. Video active perception: Effective inference-time long-form video understanding with vision-language mod- els.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.01662, 2026. 3

    2026 arXiv

  14. [22]

    EgoSchema: A diagnostic benchmark for very long- form video language understanding

    Karttikeya Mangalam, Raiymbek Akshulakov, and Jitendra Malik. EgoSchema: A diagnostic benchmark for very long- form video language understanding. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 46212–46244, 2023. 2

    2023

  15. [23]

    ERA: A data set and deep learning benchmark for event recognition in aerial videos.IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, 8(4):125–133, 2020

    Lichao Mou, Yuansheng Hua, Pu Jin, and Xiao Xiang Zhu. ERA: A data set and deep learning benchmark for event recognition in aerial videos.IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, 8(4):125–133, 2020. 1, 2, 13

    2020

  16. [24]

    UHR-Micro: Diagnosing and mit- igating the resolution illusion in earth observation VLMs

    Shuo Ni, Tong Wang, Jing Zhang, He Chen, Haonan Guo, Ning Zhang, and Bo Du. UHR-Micro: Diagnosing and mit- igating the resolution illusion in earth observation VLMs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.12237, 2026. 1, 2

    2026 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Qwen3.6-27B: Flagship-level coding in a 27B dense model

    Qwen Team. Qwen3.6-27B: Flagship-level coding in a 27B dense model. https://qwen.ai/blog?id=qwen3.6-27b, 2026. Accessed July 2026. 18

    2026

  18. [26]

    Learning social etiquette: Human tra- jectory understanding in crowded scenes

    Alexandre Robicquet, Amir Sadeghian, Alexandre Alahi, and Silvio Savarese. Learning social etiquette: Human tra- jectory understanding in crowded scenes. InProceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 549– 565, 2016. 1, 13

    2016

  19. [27]

    Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, Y . K. Li, Y . Wu, and Daya Guo. DeepSeekMath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024. 7

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    UA VReason: A unified, large-scale benchmark for multimodal aerial scene reasoning and generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.05377, 2026

    Jintao Sun, Hu Zhang, Donglin Di, Gangyi Ding, and Zhe- dong Zheng. UA VReason: A unified, large-scale benchmark for multimodal aerial scene reasoning and generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.05377, 2026. 2, 3

    2026 arXiv

  21. [29]

    RefDrone: A challenging benchmark for referring ex- pression comprehension in drone scenes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00392, 2025

    Zhaorui Sun, Yuhang Liu, Haolin Zhu, Yuxuan Gu, Yim- ing Zou, Zhen Liu, Gui-Song Xia, Bo Du, and Yongchao Xu. RefDrone: A challenging benchmark for referring ex- pression comprehension in drone scenes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00392, 2025. 2

    2025

  22. [30]

    DynamicEarthNet: Daily multi-spectral satellite dataset for semantic change segmentation

    Aysim Toker, Lukas Kondmann, Mark Weber, Marvin Eisen- berger, Andr´es Camero, Jingliang Hu, Ariadna Pregel Hoder- lein, C ¸ a˘glar S ¸enaras, Timothy Davis, Daniel Cremers, Gio- vanni Marchisio, Xiao Xiang Zhu, and Laura Leal-Taix ´e. DynamicEarthNet: Daily multi-spectral sat...

    2022

  23. [31]

    Advancing plain vision transformer toward remote sensing foundation model.IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 61:1–15,

    Di Wang, Qiming Zhang, Yufei Xu, Jing Zhang, Bo Du, Dacheng Tao, and Liangpei Zhang. Advancing plain vision transformer toward remote sensing foundation model.IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 61:1–15,

  24. [32]

    Fengxiang Wang, Hongzhen Wang, Mingshuo Chen, Di Wang, Yulin Wang, Zonghao Guo, Qiang Ma, Long Lan, Wenjing Yang, Jing Zhang, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. XLRS-Bench: Could your multimodal LLMs understand ex- tremely large ultra-high-resolution remote sensing imagery? InProce...

    2025

  25. [33]

    Earthvqa: Towards queryable earth via re- lational reasoning-based remote sensing visual question an- swering

    Junjue Wang, Zhuo Zheng, Zihang Chen, Ailong Ma, and Yanfei Zhong. Earthvqa: Towards queryable earth via re- lational reasoning-based remote sensing visual question an- swering. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 5481–5489, 2024. 1, 2, 3

    2024

  26. [34]

    InternVL3.5: Advancing open-source multimodal models in versatility, reasoning, and efficiency

    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. 18

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Skyscript: A large and semantically diverse vision-language dataset for remote sensing

    Zhecheng Wang, Rajanie Prabha, Tianyuan Huang, Jiajun Wu, and Ram Rajagopal. Skyscript: A large and semantically diverse vision-language dataset for remote sensing. InPro- ceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 5805–5813, 2024. 1, 2

    2024

  28. [36]

    Videotree: Adaptive tree-based video representation for LLM reasoning on long videos

    Ziyang Wang, Shoubin Yu, Elias Stengel-Eskin, Jaehong Yoon, Feng Cheng, Gedas Bertasius, and Mohit Bansal. Videotree: Adaptive tree-based video representation for LLM reasoning on long videos. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2025. 3

    2025

  29. [37]

    Dy- namicVL: Benchmarking multimodal large language models for dynamic city understanding

    Weihao Xuan, Junjue Wang, Heli Qi, Zihang Chen, Zhuo Zheng, Yanfei Zhong, Junshi Xia, and Naoto Yokoya. Dy- namicVL: Benchmarking multimodal large language models for dynamic city understanding. InAdvances in Neural In- formation Processing Systems, 2025. 1, 2, 3

    2025

  30. [38]

    Gupta, Rilyn Han, Li Fei-Fei, and Saining Xie

    Jihan Yang, Shusheng Yang, Anjali W. Gupta, Rilyn Han, Li Fei-Fei, and Saining Xie. Thinking in space: How mul- timodal large language models see, remember, and recall spaces. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 106...

    2025

  31. [39]

    VCA: Video curious agent for long video un- derstanding

    Zeyuan Yang, Delin Chen, Xueyang Yu, Maohao Shen, and Chuang Gan. VCA: Video curious agent for long video un- derstanding. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 20168–20179, 2025. 3

    2025

  32. [40]

    Detecting and tracking small and dense moving objects in satellite videos: A benchmark.IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Re- mote Sensing, 60:1–18, 2022

    Qian Yin, Qingyong Hu, Hao Liu, Feng Zhang, Yingqian Wang, Zaiping Lin, Wei An, and Yulan Guo. Detecting and tracking small and dense moving objects in satellite videos: A benchmark.IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Re- mote Sensing, 60:1–18, 2022. 3, 13

    2022

  33. [41]

    VideoARM: Agentic reasoning over hierarchical memory for long-form video understanding

    Yufei Yin, Qianke Meng, Minghao Chen, Jiajun Ding, Zhen- wei Shao, and Zhou Yu. VideoARM: Agentic reasoning over hierarchical memory for long-form video understanding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, 2026. 3

    2026

  34. [42]

    MiniCPM-V 4.5: Cooking efficient MLLMs via architecture, data, and training recipe.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.18154, 2025

    Tianyu Yu, Zefan Wang, Chongyi Wang, Fuwei Huang, Zhi- hui He, Tianchi Cai, Weize Chen, Yuxiang Huang, Bokai Xu, Ning Ding, et al. MiniCPM-V 4.5: Cooking efficient MLLMs via architecture, data, and training recipe.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.18154, 2025. 18

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    FUSU: A multi-temporal-source land use change segmentation dataset for fine-grained urban semantic understanding

    Shuai Yuan, Guancong Lin, Lixian Zhang, Runmin Dong, Jinxiao Zhang, Shuang Chen, Juepeng Zheng, Jie Wang, and Haohuan Fu. FUSU: A multi-temporal-source land use change segmentation dataset for fine-grained urban semantic understanding. InAdvances in Neural Information Process-...

    2024

  36. [44]

    Where does it exist from the low-altitude: Spatial aerial video grounding

    Yang Zhan and Yuan Yuan. Where does it exist from the low-altitude: Spatial aerial video grounding. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025. 2

    2025

  37. [45]

    UA VBench and UA VIT- 1M: Benchmarking and enhancing MLLMs for low-altitude UA V vision-language understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.14336, 2026

    Yang Zhan and Yuan Yuan. UA VBench and UA VIT- 1M: Benchmarking and enhancing MLLMs for low-altitude UA V vision-language understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.14336, 2026. 2, 3

    2026

  38. [46]

    VideoLLaMA 3: Frontier mul- timodal foundation models for image and video understand- ing.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, Peng Jin, Wenqi Zhang, Fan Wang, Li- dong Bing, and Deli Zhao. VideoLLaMA 3: Frontier mul- timodal foundation models for image and video understand- i...

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    UrbanVideo-Bench: Benchmark- ing vision-language models on embodied intelligence with video data in urban spaces

    Baining Zhao, Jianjie Fang, Zichao Dai, Ziyou Wang, Jirong Zha, Weichen Zhang, Chen Gao, Yue Wang, Jinqiang Cui, Xinlei Chen, and Yong Li. UrbanVideo-Bench: Benchmark- ing vision-language models on embodied intelligence with video data in urban spaces. InProceedings of the 63r...

    2025

  40. [48]

    SatSOT: A benchmark dataset for satellite video single object tracking.IEEE Trans- actions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60:1–11, 2022

    Manqi Zhao, Shengyang Li, Shiyu Xuan, Longxuan Kou, Shuai Gong, and Zhuang Zhou. SatSOT: A benchmark dataset for satellite video single object tracking.IEEE Trans- actions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60:1–11, 2022. 1, 3, 13

    2022

  41. [49]

    Group sequence policy optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.18071, 2025

    Chujie Zheng, Shixuan Liu, Mingze Li, Xiong-Hui Chen, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Kai Dang, Yuqiong Liu, Rui Men, An Yang, Jingren Zhou, and Junyang Lin. Group sequence policy optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.18071, 2025. 7

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    A.I.R.: Enabling adaptive, itera- tive, and reasoning-based frame selection for video question answering

    Yuanhao Zou, Shengji Jin, Andong Deng, Youpeng Zhao, Jun Wang, and Chen Chen. A.I.R.: Enabling adaptive, itera- tive, and reasoning-based frame selection for video question answering. InInternational Conference on Learning Repre- sentations, 2026. 3

    2026

  43. [51]

    first appearing near the top side of the lake

    Zhishan Zou, Guoyan Sun, Zhiwei Wei, Jiancheng Pan, Yujie Li, Mugen Peng, and Wenjia Xu. Self in space: Benchmark- ing self-awareness and spatial cognition in UA V embodied intelligence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.12477, 2026. 3, 8 11 Appendix Contents Appendix A. Dataset Constr...

    2026 arXiv

Pith tools

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