With recent advancements in video backbone architectures, combined with the remarkable achievements of large language models (LLMs), the analysis of long-form videos spanning tens of minutes has become both feasible and increasingly prevalent. However, the inherently redundant nature of video sequences poses significant challenges for contemporary state-of-the-art models. These challenges stem from two primary aspects: 1) efficiently incorporating a larger number of frames within memory constraints, and 2) extracting discriminative information from the vast volume of input data. In this paper, we introduce a novel end-to-end schema for long-form video understanding, which includes an information-density-based adaptive video sampler (AVS) and an autoencoder-based spatiotemporal video compressor (SVC) integrated with a multimodal large language model (MLLM). Our proposed system offers two major advantages: it adaptively and effectively captures essential information from video sequences of varying durations, and it achieves high compression rates while preserving crucial discriminative information. The proposed framework demonstrates promising performance across various benchmarks, excelling in both long-form video understanding tasks and standard video understanding benchmarks. These results underscore the versatility and efficacy of our approach, particularly in managing the complexities of prolonged video sequences.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: An overview of our method and previous works, showing the different way of modeling long-form video with LLM. Specifically, (a) interpret clip into clip-level caption and aggregate via LLM in the linguistic space, (b) uniformly sample the video frame and leverage paired text to compress video tokens, and (c) our proposed method that leverage adaptive video sampler (AVS) and autoencoder based spatiotemporal video compressor (SVC).
Figure 2: Overview of the proposed method.
Model
EgoSchema
NextQA
ActivityNetQA
MLVU
MVbench
PerceptionTest
fullset
subset
mc
acc
avg
test
val
VideoChat [ 27 ]
-
-
-
26.5
-
-
-
LLaMA Adapter [ 27 ]
-
-
-
34.2
-
-
-
Video-ChatGPT [ 27 ] (ACL’24)
-
-
-
35.2
-
-
-
LLaMA-VID [ 30 ] (ECCV’24)
-
-
-
47.5
-
-
-
Movie_Chat [ 49 ] (CVPR’24)
-
-
-
45.7
-
-
-
Table 1: Comparison with state-of-the-art MLLM-based methods on both long-form video understanding and general video understanding tasks. The bold and underline texts represent the best and the second best performances, respectively.
Sampler
NextQA
MVbench
MLVU (m-avg)
MC
test
Avg.
Anomaly Det.
Counting
Ego.
Needle
Ordering
PlotQA
Uniform
77.0
50.0
51.9
0.53
0.35
0.50
0.51
0.47
0.52
Ours (AVS)
77.1
50.2
52.6
0.54
0.37
0.51
0.52
0.49
0.53
Table 2: Experimental results of our method on NextQA, MLVU and MVbench with different video frame sampling strategies.
Compressor
Ratio
EgoS.
MLVU
MVbench
Percevier
64 ×
63.0
53.7
49.8
Avgpool-3D
2 × 4 × 4
63.5
51.5
48.7
Avgpool-3D
4 × 4 × 4
61.4
51.3
46.8
Ours (SVC)
4 × 4 × 4
63.6
51.9
50.0
Table 3: Comparison between our proposed AE based VAC and different video compressors.
Ratio (T × W × H)
EgoS.
MLVU
MVbench
NextQA
2 × 2 × 2
65.1
55.0
51.3
77.1
4 × 4 × 4
63.6
51.9
50.0
77.0
1 × 8 × 8
60.0
50.1
44.2
73.5
4 × 8 × 8
62.0
48.7
46.6
75.5
8 × 4 × 4
62.3
48.0
43.3
73.3
Table 4: Experimental results of our method with different video compression ratio.
Figure 3: Examples of sampled frames using uniform sampling (top) compared to our AVS (bottom). AVS successfully locate the key frame to answer the question.
Method
EgoS.
MLVU
MVbench
NextQA
Random Init
59.2
49.9
47.2
72.8
Pre-train
63.6
51.9
50.0
77.0
Table 5: Experimental results of our method with pre-trained SVC and random initialized counterpart.
Constrain
EgoS.
MLVU
MVBench
NExT-QA
AE
Does not converge
VAE
63.7
48.4
44.6
74.7
APool+Res
63.6
51.9
50.0
77.1
Table 6: The effectiveness of different constraints in the autoencoder pretraining of SVC.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 4: Examples of sampled frames using uniform sampling (top row) compared to our AVS (bottom row). AVS successfully locates the key frame to answer the question.
Figure 5: Examples of sampled frames using uniform sampling (top row) compared to our AVS (bottom row). AVS successfully locates the key frame to answer the question.
Training Statge
Dataset Name
Sample number
Stage 1
ShutterStock
2,827,000
stage 2
ShutterStock
5,113,000
Ego4d
1,975,861
BreakFast
20,175
AVA
183,580
Vatex
252,200
Appendix
Table 7: The composition of training data across different training stages.