Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Switch-a-View: View Selection Learned from Unlabeled In-the-wild Videos

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Mining unlabeled web videos teaches a model when to switch camera views.

desk verdict Genuinely new pretext task and fair baselines, but the HT100M results are compromised by unvalidated pseudo-labels and test-set construction; the Ego-Exo4D results are cleaner but modest. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18386 v3 pith:W7JGJ5ZU submitted 2024-12-24 cs.CV

Sagnik Majumder , Tushar Nagarajan , Ziad Al-Halah , Kristen Grauman This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords viewselectionegocentricvideoexocentricinstructionalweaksupervisionpretexttaskview-switchdetectionpseudo-labeling
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 tries to show that a view-switch detector trained with pseudo-labels from unlabeled how-to videos can teach a model to pick which camera to show in a multi-camera instructional video, even when few manually labeled examples are available. The authors argue that human-edited web videos encode implicit choices about which viewpoint best shows an activity, and those choices can be recovered without direct supervision. If right, this would make automatic cinematography for how-to videos practical, since the training signal would come from videos that already exist rather than from expensive annotations.

What carries the argument

The pretext task is two-class next-view prediction: given past frames, past narrations, past views, and the upcoming narration, the model decides whether the next interval is egocentric or exocentric. The training signal comes from a pseudo-labeler that splits each HowTo100M video into shots with PySceneDetect, classifies each shot with a Charades-Ego-trained ego/exo classifier, and averages clip probabilities per shot to label the view sequence. The detector itself is a transformer that fuses DINOv2 frame features, Llama-2 narration features, learned view embeddings, and temporal embeddings through a [CLS] token, and the same architecture with candidate ego/exo frames appended becomes the view selector.

What would settle it

Collect a test set where ground-truth view switches are manually annotated across many HowTo100M videos, train the same model with the pseudo-labeler replaced by these clean labels, and check whether zero-shot transfer to Ego-Exo4D collapses or improves; if clean labels do not change or improve performance, the pseudo-labeling pipeline is not the source of the claimed gains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SWITCH-A-VIEW learns to predict whether the view will change at any moment in an instructional video, then repurposes that detector as a view selector. Trained on 3,416 hours of HowTo100M videos whose ego/exo labels are produced automatically, the detector outperforms retrieval-based and heuristic baselines on view-switch detection, and after fine-tuning on a small labeled set of Ego-Exo4D clips it outperforms the state-of-the-art weakly supervised view selector. The authors report that removing the pretraining step sharply degrades performance, supporting their claim that the pretext task supplies the useful transferable knowledge.

Load-bearing premise

The pseudo-labeled ego/exo segments in HowTo100M reflect genuine human view-switch preferences, which requires the Charades-Ego-trained classifier and PySceneDetect boundaries to be accurate enough on in-the-wild how-to videos.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A model pretrained this way needs as few as 1,000 labeled examples to beat a baseline trained with 98x more data.
  • View-switch detection transfers zero-shot to Ego-Exo4D, suggesting the learned view patterns generalize across video domains.
  • Combining the model's pretraining with narration-based pseudo-labels from a prior method yields further gains, indicating the two weak-supervision signals are complementary.
  • The approach removes the need for negative examples, because unlabeled edited videos supply positive view choices implicitly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the pseudo-labeler's ego/exo bias carries over, the detector may systematically favor one view type in ambiguous cases; a dataset with clean ego/exo boundaries would test this.
  • The same pretext idea could be extended to more than two views, e.g., selecting among multiple exo cameras, using continuous view representations instead of a binary label.
  • The use of the next narration as a cue suggests that offline editing, where the full narration track exists before selection, is the right setting; live streaming would need to drop or predict that input.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces SWITCH-A-VIEW, a method for view selection in multi-camera instructional videos. It trains a view-switch detector on unlabeled HowTo100M videos using pseudo-labels: PySceneDetect boundaries produce shots, and a Charades-Ego-trained SlowFast classifier produces ego/exo labels per shot. The detector is a multimodal transformer that takes past frames, past narrations, the next narration, and past views as input. The authors show that the pretrained detector can be repurposed as a view selector by injecting candidate ego/exo frames and fine-tuning with limited labels. Evaluation covers view-switch detection on HT100M and zero-shot on Ego-Exo4D, as well as view selection with limited labels on Ego-Exo4D, reporting gains over retrieval, heuristic, and LangView baselines.

Significance. If the evidence held up, the contribution would be valuable: it offers a practical way to learn editing preferences from human-edited videos without manual view labels, with a clear experimental framework, human-annotated test sets with substantial inter-annotator agreement, ablations, and zero-shot transfer evaluation. The strengths are the careful annotation protocol, the breadth of baselines, and the detailed supplementary analyses. However, the central claim depends on the pseudo-labeler's accuracy, which is not validated on the target domain, and the HT100M evaluation protocol may systematically reward agreement with the pseudo-labeler. As a result, the paper currently supports a weaker claim: that a representation trained on pseudo-labeled view-switch events transfers modestly to independent multi-view data.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2 / Supp. 7.11.1] The training signal for the pretext task is entirely produced by the view pseudo-labeler: PySceneDetect shots are labeled by a Charades-Ego-trained ego/exo classifier. The paper never reports the pseudo-labeler's accuracy on HowTo100M against human labels. Since Charades-Ego is a controlled, paired ego/exo dataset and HowTo100M is in-the-wild with close-up exo shots that can resemble ego views, a systematic bias in the pseudo-labeler would be learned by the detector as if it were human view-preference. Please validate the pseudo-labeler on a human-labeled HT100M subset, reporting precision and recall, ideally stratified by shot type and boundary proximity, and show that training on filtered labels preserves the downstream gains.
  2. [Supp. 7.9 / Sec. 5 (Implementation)] The HT100M test set is constructed by additionally including "the clips right after all view-switch boundaries, as identified by our pseudo-labeler," and the past views for HT100M evaluation are obtained from the same pseudo-labeler. This couples the evaluation to the pseudo-labeler used in training: the model may be rewarded for mimicking the pseudo-labeler's boundary and view decisions rather than for matching human-edited view-switch choices. The large HT100M margins (AUC 63.8 vs. 53.4) could therefore overstate the method's ability to predict human view switches. Please report results on an unbiased HT100M test set, such as randomly sampled clips with human-annotated past views, and treat the Ego-Exo4D zero-shot evaluation with ground-truth past views as the primary quantitative evidence for human view-switch generalization.
  3. [Sec. 5, Tables 1 and 2] The headline claim of state-of-the-art view selection rests on a 2.5 AUC margin over LangView-bigData in Table 2 and a 3.8 AUC margin in zero-shot view-switch detection in Table 1. These margins are modest, and the ablation "ours w/o pretraining" (AUC 51.6) shows that the pretext matters. Given the pseudo-label validation gap above, the current evidence does not yet establish that the model learned human view-switch patterns; it may have learned a generic ego/exo-adapted representation. I would be satisfied if the authors add pseudo-label validation, unbiased HT100M evaluation, and confidence intervals or variance estimates for the zero-shot Ego-Exo4D margin over the best retrieval baseline.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 5, View-switch detection paragraph] The sentence "our model inputs do provide cues about the the view type" contains a duplicated article; please fix.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption contains the typo "popenopenotentially"; it should read "potentially."
  3. [Supp. 7.10] The phrase "common for both both HT100M and Ego-Exo4D" repeats "both"; please correct.
  4. [References [34] and [35]] These entries refer to the same work with inconsistent author spelling ("Nagarajan" vs. "Nagarjan"); please unify the citation.
  5. [Supp. 7.11.1] The choice of a 2-second minimum shot length for PySceneDetect is not motivated; a sentence explaining this choice would help readers assess the pseudo-labeling pipeline.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: training targets come from an external Charades-Ego classifier, and predictions are evaluated against independent human labels on held-out data.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. The view-switch detector is trained on pseudo-labels produced by an ego/exo classifier trained on Charades-Ego (an external dataset with human labels) plus PySceneDetect shot boundaries; the downstream predictions are tested against independent human annotations on HowTo100M and zero-shot on Ego-Exo4D, with substantial inter-annotator agreement (Cohen's kappa 0.65 and 0.70). No parameter is fitted to the test labels, and the view-selection model is initialized from the pretext detector and finetuned on a disjoint set of human best-view labels; the 'w/o pretraining' ablation shows the pretraining signal carries the improvement. The cited prior works with overlapping authors (the Charades-Ego view classifier and LangView) are used as external learned components, baselines, or auxiliary losses, not as an unverified premise that forces the reported conclusion. The HT100M test set oversamples clips right after pseudo-labeler-detected boundaries, which is a benchmark-construction choice that could affect generalization estimates, but it does not make any predicted quantity equal to the training input by construction. Thus there is no significant circularity.

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

The method depends on several tunable hyperparameters (durations, weights, sample counts) and on domain assumptions about the ego/exo taxonomy and the transferability of pseudo-labels. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Prediction interval delta = 2 seconds
    Sets the horizon over which the view is predicted in both view-switch detection and view selection; fixed for all experiments (Sec 5).
  • Past frame duration T_F = 8 seconds
    Ablation in Table 6 shows best performance at 8s; chosen on validation.
  • Past narration duration T_N = 32 seconds
    Ablation in Table 7 shows best performance at 32s; chosen on validation.
  • Joint finetuning weight alpha = 0.3
    Weight for narration-based pseudo-label loss in joint finetuning, set on validation (Supp. 7.4).
  • View-selection sample count W = 5000
    Number of best-view labels used for finetuning; Fig. 3a shows performance stabilizes after 1000-2000 samples.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Binary ego/exo taxonomy is sufficient to represent human-preferred views in instructional videos.
    The method collapses all viewpoints into two classes; this is assumed throughout, especially in Sec 3.1 and the annotation protocol.
  • domain assumption Human-edited how-to videos contain view-switch patterns that generalize to novel multi-view videos.
    The central transfer assumption; the pretext task is trained on HowTo100M and applied to Ego-Exo4D zero-shot or with limited labels.
  • domain assumption The pseudo-labeler trained on Charades-Ego transfers to in-the-wild HowTo100M videos.
    The ego/exo classifier is trained on Charades-Ego and applied to HowTo100M without domain adaptation (Sec 3.2).
  • domain assumption Next narration is available at inference time in multi-view settings.
    The detector conditions on the next narration N' which overlaps with the prediction interval; the paper notes this is available in their setting (Sec 3.1 footnote 2).
  • domain assumption Annotator agreement (>=78%) is a valid gold standard for best view.
    Test labels are filtered by inter-annotator agreement; kappa values reported as substantial (Sec 4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Switch-a-View: View Selection Learned from Unlabeled In-the-wild Videos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W7JGJ5ZU

@misc{pith2026241218386,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Switch-a-View: View Selection Learned from Unlabeled In-the-wild Videos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W7JGJ5ZU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18386}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce SWITCH-A-VIEW, a model that learns to automatically select the viewpoint to display at each timepoint when creating a how-to video. The key insight of our approach is how to train such a model from unlabeled -- but human-edited -- video samples. We pose a pretext task that pseudo-labels segments in the training videos for their primary viewpoint (egocentric or exocentric), and then discovers the patterns between the visual and spoken content in a how-to video on the one hand and its view-switch moments on the other hand. Armed with this predictor, our model can be applied to new multi-view video settings for orchestrating which viewpoint should be displayed when, even when such settings come with limited labels. We demonstrate our idea on a variety of real-world videos from HowTo100M and Ego-Exo4D, and rigorously validate its advantages. Project: https://vision.cs.utexas.edu/projects/switch_a_view/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18386 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Given a multi-view narrated how-to video, can we select the sequence of camera viewpoints that best show the activity—automating the camerawork that is today done with manual editing? While direct supervision for this task is impractical, our SWITCH-A-VIEW approach shows how to learn typical viewpoint choice patterns from large-scale unlabeled in-the-wild instructional videos (left), then translate those patterns to… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Given varying-view instructional videos—videos composed of a sequence of views chosen by human(s) to accurately show the instructional activity at all times—our goal is to train a view-switch detector D that can predict if the view should switch or not, at any time in a new video. Our hypothesis is that such a detector, when trained on large-scale and in-the-wild videos, can capture human view preferences and facili… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Effect of sample count on our view selection (VS) performance; (b) Impact of joint finetuning with narration-based pseudo-labels [34] and best view labels on view selection (VS) cating the frames from candidate views when combined with the corresponding narration (N′ ) provide direct cues about the preferred view. LangView [34]’s results benefit from its language-guided training, generally outperforming VN-Sim. … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: successful view-switch detections by our model on same-view (top) and view-switch cases (bottom). Our model correctly detects view switches by popenopenotentially anticipating the next step using past frames (same-view sample 1, and view-switch sample 2) or lever…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the breakdown of view selection performance per scenario, where only the scenarios with a minimum of 10 instances after filtering low-quality annotations (‘Data for view selection with limited labels’ in Sec. 4 in main) are shown. Compared to the best-performing …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Sample interface for collecting HT100M [37] annotations (‘Evaluation data’ and ‘Annotator agreement on best view’ in Sec. 4 in main). Additionally, we also provide video examples for both ego (closeup shot) and exo (wide shot) clips, to help the annotators. of the list…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Sample interface for collecting Ego-Exo4D [19] annotation (‘Evaluation data’ and ‘Annotator agreement on best view’ in Sec. 4 in main) . Additionally, we also provide examples showing pairs of clips from both ego and exo views, their associated atomic descriptions, and…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Bridging Perspectives: A Survey on Cross-view Collaborative Intelligence with Egocentric-Exocentric Vision

    cs.CV 2025-06 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

    A comprehensive review of cross-view video understanding that uses both first-person and third-person cameras, organized into a three-direction taxonomy with a dataset catalog and future research gaps.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A dataset for developing and benchmarking active vision

    Phil Ammirato, Patrick Poirson, Eunbyung Park, Jana Košecká, and Alexander C Berg. A dataset for developing and benchmarking active vision. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 1378–

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Automatic editing of footage from multiple social cameras

    Ido Arev, Hyun Soo Park, Yaser Sheikh, Jessica Hodgins, and Ariel Shamir. Automatic editing of footage from multiple social cameras. ACM Trans. Graph., 33(4), 2014. 2

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Video-mined task graphs for keystep recognition in instructional videos

    Kumar Ashutosh, Santhosh Kumar Ramakrishnan, Triantafyl- los Afouras, and Kristen Grauman. Video-mined task graphs for keystep recognition in instructional videos. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Contrastive learning for unsupervised video highlight detection

    Taivanbat Badamdorj, Mrigank Rochan, Yang Wang, and Li Cheng. Contrastive learning for unsupervised video highlight detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 14042–14052, 2022. 2

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Pyscenedetect

    Brandon Castellano. Pyscenedetect. https://github. com/Breakthrough/PySceneDetect. 4, 15

    work page

  6. [6]

    Enhanced interactive 360° viewing via automatic guidance

    Seunghoon Cha, Jungjin Lee, Seunghwa Jeong, Younghui Kim, and Junyong Noh. Enhanced interactive 360° viewing via automatic guidance. ACM Trans. Graph., 39(5), 2020. 2

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Learn- ing sports camera selection from internet videos

    Jianhui Chen, Keyu Lu, Sijia Tian, and Jim Little. Learn- ing sports camera selection from internet videos. In 2019 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), pages 1682–1691. IEEE, 2019. 1, 2

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Geometry-aware recurrent neural networks for active visual recognition

    Ricson Cheng, Ziyan Wang, and Katerina Fragkiadaki. Geometry-aware recurrent neural networks for active visual recognition. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31, 2018. 2

    work page 2018

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Self-view grounding given a narrated 360 {\deg} video

    Shih-Han Chou, Yi-Chun Chen, Kuo-Hao Zeng, Hou-Ning Hu, Jianlong Fu, and Min Sun. Self-view grounding given a narrated 360 {\deg} video. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.08664,

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Video co-summarization: Video summarization by visual co- occurrence

    Wen-Sheng Chu, Yale Song, and Alejandro Jaimes. Video co-summarization: Video summarization by visual co- occurrence. In 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 3584–3592, 2015. 2

    2015

  3. [11]

    J. Cohen. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1):37–46,

  4. [12]

    Multi-view active fine- grained visual recognition

    Ruoyi Du, Wenqing Yu, Heqing Wang, Ting-En Lin, Dongliang Chang, and Zhanyu Ma. Multi-view active fine- grained visual recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 1568–1578, 2023. 2

    2023

  5. [13]

    Multi- stream dynamic video summarization

    Mohamed Elfeki, Liqiang Wang, and Ali Borji. Multi- stream dynamic video summarization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 339–349, 2022. 2

    2022

  6. [14]

    Slowfast networks for video recognition

    Christoph Feichtenhofer, Haoqi Fan, Jitendra Malik, and Kaiming He. Slowfast networks for video recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 6202–6211, 2019. 16

    2019

  7. [15]

    Masked autoencoders as spatiotemporal learners

    Christoph Feichtenhofer, Yanghao Li, Kaiming He, et al. Masked autoencoders as spatiotemporal learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:35946–35958,

  8. [16]

    Foote and D

    J. Foote and D. Kimber. Flycam: practical panoramic video and automatic camera control. In 2000 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo. ICME2000. Proceed- ings. Latest Advances in the Fast Changing World of Multi- media (Cat. No.00TH8532), pages 1419–1422 vol.3, ...

    2000

  9. [17]

    Towards virtual videog- raphy (poster session)

    Michael Gleicher and James Masanz. Towards virtual videog- raphy (poster session). In Proceedings of the Eighth ACM International Conference on Multimedia, page 375–378, New York, NY , USA, 2000. Association for Computing Machinery. 1, 2

    2000

  10. [18]

    Diverse sequential subset selection for supervised video sum- marization

    Boqing Gong, Wei-Lun Chao, Kristen Grauman, and Fei Sha. Diverse sequential subset selection for supervised video sum- marization. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Curran Associates, Inc., 2014. 2

    2014

  11. [19]

    Ego-exo4d: Understanding skilled human activity from first-and third-person perspectives

    Kristen Grauman, Andrew Westbury, Lorenzo Torresani, Kris Kitani, Jitendra Malik, Triantafyllos Afouras, Kumar Ashutosh, Vijay Baiyya, Siddhant Bansal, Bikram Boote, et al. Ego-exo4d: Understanding skilled human activity from first-and third-person perspectives. arXiv preprint...

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Creating summaries from user videos

    Michael Gygli, Helmut Grabner, Hayko Riemenschneider, and Luc Van Gool. Creating summaries from user videos. In Computer Vision – ECCV 2014, pages 505–520, Cham, 2014. Springer International Publishing. 2

    2014

  13. [21]

    Align and attend: Multimodal summarization with dual contrastive losses

    Bo He, Jun Wang, Jielin Qiu, Trung Bui, Abhinav Shrivas- tava, and Zhaowen Wang. Align and attend: Multimodal summarization with dual contrastive losses. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 14867–14878, 2023. 2

    2023

  14. [22]

    Virtual videography

    Rachel Heck, Michael Wallick, and Michael Gleicher. Virtual videography. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, page 961–962, New York, NY , USA, 2006. Association for Computing Machinery. 2

    2006

  15. [23]

    Deep 360 pilot: Learn- ing a deep agent for piloting through 360deg sports videos

    Hou-Ning Hu, Yen-Chen Lin, Ming-Yu Liu, Hsien-Tzu Cheng, Yung-Ju Chang, and Min Sun. Deep 360 pilot: Learn- ing a deep agent for piloting through 360deg sports videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3451–3460, 2017. 1, 2

    2017

  16. [24]

    End-to-end policy learning for active visual categorization

    Dinesh Jayaraman and Kristen Grauman. End-to-end policy learning for active visual categorization. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 41(7):1601– 1614, 2019. 2

    2019

  17. [25]

    Matsushita, Xiaoou Tang, and Xue-Quan Chen

    Hong-Wen Kang, Y . Matsushita, Xiaoou Tang, and Xue-Quan Chen. Space-time video montage. In 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR’06), pages 1331–1338, 2006. 2

    2006

  18. [26]

    The kinetics hu- man action video dataset

    Will Kay, Joao Carreira, Karen Simonyan, Brian Zhang, Chloe Hillier, Sudheendra Vijayanarasimhan, Fabio Viola, Tim Green, Trevor Back, Paul Natsev, et al. The kinetics hu- man action video dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.06950,

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    The measurement of observer agree- ment for categorical data

    J Landis and G Koch. The measurement of observer agree- ment for categorical data. Biometrics, 1977. 6 9

    1977

  20. [28]

    How local is the local diversity? reinforcing sequential deter- minantal point processes with dynamic ground sets for super- vised video summarization

    Yandong Li, Liqiang Wang, Tianbao Yang, and Boqing Gong. How local is the local diversity? reinforcing sequential deter- minantal point processes with dynamic ground sets for super- vised video summarization. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) ...

  21. [29]

    Ego-exo: Transferring visual representations from third- person to first-person videos

    Yanghao Li, Tushar Nagarajan, Bo Xiong, and Kristen Grau- man. Ego-exo: Transferring visual representations from third- person to first-person videos. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 6943–6953, 2021. 4

    2021

  22. [30]

    Learning to recognize procedural activities with distant supervision

    Xudong Lin, Fabio Petroni, Gedas Bertasius, Marcus Rohrbach, Shih-Fu Chang, and Lorenzo Torresani. Learning to recognize procedural activities with distant supervision. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13853–13863, 2022. 2

    2022

  23. [31]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017. 16, 17

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Story-driven summarization for egocentric video

    Zheng Lu and Kristen Grauman. Story-driven summarization for egocentric video. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, page 2714–2721, USA, 2013. IEEE Computer Society. 2

    2013

  25. [33]

    X-clip: End-to-end multi-grained con- trastive learning for video-text retrieval

    Yiwei Ma, Guohai Xu, Xiaoshuai Sun, Ming Yan, Ji Zhang, and Rongrong Ji. X-clip: End-to-end multi-grained con- trastive learning for video-text retrieval. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM international conference on multimedia, pages 638–647, 2022. 13, 14

    2022

  26. [34]

    Which viewpoint shows it best? language for weakly supervising view selection in multi- view videos

    Sagnik Majumder, Tushar Nagarajan, Ziad Al-Halah, Reina Pradhan, and Kristen Grauman. Which viewpoint shows it best? language for weakly supervising view selection in multi- view videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.08753, 2024. 2, 6, 7, 12, 13

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Which viewpoint shows it best? language for weakly supervising view selection in multi-view videos

    Sagnik Majumder, Tushar Nagarjan, Ziad Al-Halah, Reina Pradhan, and Kristen Grauman. Which viewpoint shows it best? language for weakly supervising view selection in multi-view videos. 2024. 2, 7

    2024

  28. [36]

    Learning to ground instructional articles in videos through narrations

    Effrosyni Mavroudi, Triantafyllos Afouras, and Lorenzo Tor- resani. Learning to ground instructional articles in videos through narrations. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 15201–15213, 2023. 2

    2023

  29. [37]

    Howto100m: Learning a text-video embedding by watching hundred mil- lion narrated video clips

    Antoine Miech, Dimitri Zhukov, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Makarand Tapaswi, Ivan Laptev, and Josef Sivic. Howto100m: Learning a text-video embedding by watching hundred mil- lion narrated video clips. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , pag...

    2019

  30. [38]

    Tl; dw? summarizing instructional videos with task relevance and cross-modal saliency

    Medhini Narasimhan, Arsha Nagrani, Chen Sun, Michael Rubinstein, Trevor Darrell, Anna Rohrbach, and Cordelia Schmid. Tl; dw? summarizing instructional videos with task relevance and cross-modal saliency. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 540–557. Springer, 2022. 2

    2022

  31. [39]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision

    Maxime Oquab, Timothée Darcet, Théo Moutakanni, Huy V o, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel Haziza, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, et al. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023. 6, 16

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Collaborative summarization of topic-related videos

    Rameswar Panda and Amit K Roy-Chowdhury. Collaborative summarization of topic-related videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 7083–7092, 2017. 2

    2017

  33. [41]

    Category-specific video summarization

    Danila Potapov, Matthijs Douze, Zaid Harchaoui, and Cordelia Schmid. Category-specific video summarization. In Computer Vision – ECCV 2014 , pages 540–555, Cham,

    2014

  34. [42]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion

    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 supervi- sion. In International conference on machine learning, ...

    2021

  35. [43]

    Emergence of exploratory look-around behaviors through active observation completion

    Santhosh K Ramakrishnan, Dinesh Jayaraman, and Kristen Grauman. Emergence of exploratory look-around behaviors through active observation completion. Science Robotics, 4 (30):eaaw6326, 2019. 2

    2019

  36. [44]

    Video sum- marization using fully convolutional sequence networks

    Mrigank Rochan, Linwei Ye, and Yang Wang. Video sum- marization using fully convolutional sequence networks. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pages 347–363, 2018. 2

    2018

  37. [45]

    Adaptive video highlight detection by learning from user history

    Mrigank Rochan, Mahesh Kumar Krishna Reddy, Linwei Ye, and Yang Wang. Adaptive video highlight detection by learning from user history. In Computer Vision – ECCV 2020, pages 261–278, Cham, 2020. Springer International Publishing. 2

    2020

  38. [46]

    Chowdhury

    Abhimanyu Sahu and Ananda S. Chowdhury. Shot level ego- centric video co-summarization. In 2018 24th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 2887–2892,

    2018

  39. [47]

    Attend and segment: Attention guided active semantic segmentation

    Soroush Seifi and Tinne Tuytelaars. Attend and segment: Attention guided active semantic segmentation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 305–321. Springer,

  40. [48]

    Glimpse- attend-and-explore: Self-attention for active visual explo- ration

    Soroush Seifi, Abhishek Jha, and Tinne Tuytelaars. Glimpse- attend-and-explore: Self-attention for active visual explo- ration. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 16137–16146, 2021. 2

    2021

  41. [49]

    Actor and observer: Joint mod- eling of first and third-person videos

    Gunnar A Sigurdsson, Abhinav Gupta, Cordelia Schmid, Ali Farhadi, and Karteek Alahari. Actor and observer: Joint mod- eling of first and third-person videos. In proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 7396–7404, 2018. 14

    2018

  42. [50]

    Charades-ego: A large-scale dataset of paired third and first person videos

    Gunnar A Sigurdsson, Abhinav Gupta, Cordelia Schmid, Ali Farhadi, and Karteek Alahari. Charades-ego: A large-scale dataset of paired third and first person videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.09626, 2018. 4, 14

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Video skimming for quick browsing based on audio and image characterization

    Michael Smith and Takeo Kanade. Video skimming for quick browsing based on audio and image characterization. Techni- cal Report CMU-CS-95-186, Pittsburgh, PA, 1995. 2

    1995

  44. [52]

    Tvsum: Summarizing web videos using titles

    Yale Song, Jordi Vallmitjana, Amanda Stent, and Alejan- dro Jaimes. Tvsum: Summarizing web videos using titles. In 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 5179–5187, 2015. 2

    2015

  45. [53]

    Pano2vid: Automatic cinematography for watching 360 10 videos

    Yu-Chuan Su, Dinesh Jayaraman, and Kristen Grauman. Pano2vid: Automatic cinematography for watching 360 10 videos. In Asian Conference on Computer Vision , pages 154–171. Springer, 2016. 1, 2

    2016

  46. [54]

    Foote, D

    Xinding Sun, J. Foote, D. Kimber, and B. S. Manjunath. Region of interest extraction and virtual camera control based on panoramic video capturing. Trans. Multi., 7(5):981–990,

  47. [55]

    Coin: A large-scale dataset for comprehensive instructional video analysis

    Yansong Tang, Dajun Ding, Yongming Rao, Yu Zheng, Danyang Zhang, Lili Zhao, Jiwen Lu, and Jie Zhou. Coin: A large-scale dataset for comprehensive instructional video analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1207–1216,

  48. [56]

    Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Am- jad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023. 6, 16

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    A closer look at spatiotemporal convolutions for action recognition

    Du Tran, Heng Wang, Lorenzo Torresani, Jamie Ray, Yann LeCun, and Manohar Paluri. A closer look at spatiotemporal convolutions for action recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, pages 6450–6459, 2018. 16

    2018

  50. [58]

    Attention is all you need

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszko- reit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017. 4, 6, 17

    2017

  51. [59]

    Internvideo2: Scaling foundation models for mul- timodal video understanding

    Yi Wang, Kunchang Li, Xinhao Li, Jiashuo Yu, Yinan He, Guo Chen, Baoqi Pei, Rongkun Zheng, Zun Wang, Yansong Shi, et al. Internvideo2: Scaling foundation models for mul- timodal video understanding. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 396–416. Springer, 2024. 2, 6...

    2024

  52. [60]

    Snap angle prediction for 360° panoramas

    Bo Xiong and Kristen Grauman. Snap angle prediction for 360° panoramas. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2018. 2

    2018

  53. [61]

    An au- tomated end-to-end lecture capture and broadcasting system

    Cha Zhang, Yong Rui, Jim Crawford, and Li-Wei He. An au- tomated end-to-end lecture capture and broadcasting system. ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl., 4(1), 2008. 1, 2

    2008

  54. [62]

    Summary transfer: Exemplar-based subset selection for video summarization

    Ke Zhang, Wei-Lun Chao, Fei Sha, and Kristen Grauman. Summary transfer: Exemplar-based subset selection for video summarization. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1059–1067,

  55. [63]

    Learning procedure-aware video represen- tation from instructional videos and their narrations

    Yiwu Zhong, Licheng Yu, Yang Bai, Shangwen Li, Xueting Yan, and Yin Li. Learning procedure-aware video represen- tation from instructional videos and their narrations. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 14825–14835, 2023. 2

    2023

  56. [64]

    Procedure-aware pretraining for instructional video understanding

    Honglu Zhou, Roberto Martín-Martín, Mubbasir Kapadia, Silvio Savarese, and Juan Carlos Niebles. Procedure-aware pretraining for instructional video understanding. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10727–10738, 2023. 2 11

    2023

  57. [66]

    closeup" and “wide

    Supplementary material In this supplementary material we provide additional details about: • Video for qualitatively illustrating of our main idea and also qualitatively evaluating of our view-switch detections and view selections (Sec. 7.1), as mentioned in ‘Qualitative examp...

  58. [2014]

    Springer International Publishing. 2

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.