Efficiently understanding long-form videos remains a fundamental challenge for multimodal large language models (MLLMs). In this paper, we present MLLM-Sampler Joint Evolution (MSJoE), a novel framework that jointly evolves the MLLM and a lightweight key-frame sampler for efficient long-form video understanding. MSJoE builds upon a key assumption that only a small subset of key-frames is truly informative for answering each question to a video. Specifically, MSJoE first reasons out several queries, which describe diverse visual perspectives relevant to the question. Then, these queries interact with a frozen CLIP model to produce a query-frame similarity matrix. Finally, a lightweight sampler predicts key-frame sampling weights from this matrix, selecting a compact set of informative frames, which are then fed into the MLLM for answer generation. Both the MLLM and sampler are jointly optimized through reinforcement learning, enabling co-adaptation of query-reasoning, frame-sampling, and key-frame understanding. A new long-video QA dataset containing 2.8K videos with 7K question-answer pairs is collected to support the training process. Extensive experiments on VideoMME, LongVideoBench, LVBench, and MLVU show that MSJoE achieves 8.0% accuracy gain upon the base MLLM, and 1.1% higher accuracy than strongest baseline method.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: A direct comparison among static key-frame sampling algorithms, trainable key-frame sampler, and our proposed MLLM-Sampler Joint Evolution framework (MSJoE).
Figure 2: Our dataset construction pipeline. QA pairs with low difficulty or poor quality are removed during multi-stage filtering.
Figure 3: The proposed MSJoE framework. Given a video and question, MSJoE generates reasoning-based queries from a sparse preview, matches them against dense frames via CLIP to create a similarity matrix, and uses a lightweight U-Sampler to select informative frames. The MLLM then processes these key frames at high resolution for answer generation. The entire framework is jointly optimized through end-to-end reinforcement learning.
Method
#Frames
MLVU
LongVideoBench
Video-MME
LVBench
Long
Avg.
Close-Sourse MLLMs
GPT-4o
-
66.7
64.6
65.3
71.9
-
Gemini-1.5-pro
-
64.0
-
67.4
75.0
33.1
Open-Source MLLMs
VideoMind-7B
-
-
64.4
49.2
58.2
40.8
Table 1: Comparison of MLLMs and baseline methods against our method MSJoE on four benchmarks. We bold the best results and highlight performance gain over the base-MLLM. The performance of baseline methods are reported according to published papers.
Figure 4: Ablation studies on varying input frames (x-axis). Four methods are evaluated: MSJoE in light violet, Top- k in red, and Uniform Sampling uniform sampling in gray.
M
S
MLVU
LoVi
VLong
LVB
Ours
T
PT-T
69.3
60.1
54.1
46.4
(i)
T
T
69.1
59.8
53.8
46.2
(ii)
T
PT-F
68.8
58.1
52.4
45.5
(iii)
F
PT-T*
68.7
58.2
52.1
44.8
(iv)
F
PT-F
68.2
56.8
52.2
44.3
(v)
F
top-k
64.5
55.1
45.4
41.8
Table 2: Ablation studies on the MLLM (M) and Sampler (S) module with a fixed input budget of 32 frames. The module settings T, PT, and F denote Training, Pre-Trained, Frozen respectively. Setting iii (PT-T*) denotes we feed the same frames (reasoned and sampled) as Ours to a frozen MLLM. Setting vi (F*) denotes using a Frozen MLLM w/ question-as-query. LoVi, VLong, and LVB denote the benchmarks LongVideoBench, VideoMME-Long, and LVBench, respectively.
Figure 5: Three frame sets from a publicly available video generated by different sampling strategies. Question: What motivated her to change dietary habits? (A) Family and friends (B) Diabetes (C) Tooth decay (D) Anemia .
Figure 6: Distribution of question–frame similarity for top-k (left) and query–frame similarity for MSJoE (right). Blue markers denote the frames selected by each method.
IR
DR
MLVU
LoVi
VLong
LVB
✓
✓
69.3
60.1
54.1
46.4
✗
✓
69.1
59.8
54.1
46.2
-
✓
68.2
56.8
52.2
44.3
-
✗
62.5
55.4
49.2
38.9
Table 3: Ablation studies on the Informativeness Reward (IR) and Difficulty-aware Reward (DR) with a fixed input budget of 32 frames. LoVi, VLong, and LVB denote the benchmarks LongVideoBench, VideoMME-Long, and LVBench, respectively.
Figure 7: Average accuracy on the four benchmarks under different number of input frames as a preview.
Query
CLIP
UNet
QA
ALL
Uniform
2.809
0.029
0.038
3.353
6.226
3.723
Table 4: Average time (s) cost by the four inference steps on 1,000 samples.
Figure 8: Smoothed reward curves across different training configurations.
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have shown strong performance on video question answering, but their application to long-form videos is constrained by limited context length and computational cost, making keyframe sampling essential. Existing approaches typically rely on semantic relevance or reinforcement learning, which either fail to capture evidential clues or suffer from inefficient combinatorial optimization. In this work, we propose an evidence-driven keyframe sampling framework grounded in information bottleneck theory. We formulate keyframe selection as maximizing the conditional mutual information between selected frames and the query, providing a principled objective that reflects each frame's contribution to answering the question. To make this objective tractable, we exploit its structure to derive a decomposed optimization that reduces subset selection to independent frame-level scoring. We further introduce a query-conditioned evidence scoring network trained with a contrastive objective to estimate evidential importance efficiently. Experiments on long-form video understanding benchmarks show that our method consistently outperforms prior sampling strategies under strict token budgets, while significantly improving training efficiency.
Yiheng Wang, Lichen Zhu, Yueqian Lin +4
Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA · Independent Researcher
Understanding long videos requires extracting query-relevant information from long sequences under tight compute budgets. Existing text-then-LLM pipelines lose fine-grained visual cues, while video-based multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can keep visual details but are too frame-hungry and computationally expensive. In this work, we aim to harness MLLMs for efficient video understanding. We propose ProVCA, a progressive video condensation agent that iteratively locates key video frames at multiple granularities. ProVCA first adopts a segment localization module to identify the video segment relevant to the query, then a snippet selection module to select important snippets based on similarity, and finally a keyframe refinement module to pinpoint specific keyframes in those snippets. By progressively narrowing the scope from coarse segments to fine frames, ProVCA identifies a small set of keyframes for MLLM-based reasoning. ProVCA achieves state-of-the-art zero-shot accuracies of 69.3% on EgoSchema, 80.5% on NExT-QA, and 77.7% on IntentQA, while using fewer frames than previous training-free methods.
Yufei Yin, Yuchen Xing, Qianke Meng +3
Zhejiang Key Laboratory of Space Information Sensing and Transmission, Hangzhou Dianzi University, China
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) cannot process every frame of a long video because of limitations in visual-token and computational budgets. Three primary approaches have been proposed to enhance their long-video understanding capabilities: (i) Retraining an MLLM on a large video corpus and/or extending its input length; (ii) Training an adapter for a specific MLLM that takes the entire video and the query as input and selects the most relevant video frames; and (iii) Developing a training-free, plug-and-play (PaP) adapter that is MLLM-agnostic. We refer to the third approach as PaP keyframe selection. A PaP method may use only candidate video frames without considering the query, or it may use both candidate video frames and the query. The first approach is prohibitively expensive. The second approach requires substantial training time and computational resources, but it is accessible to many because an adapter contains significantly fewer trainable parameters than an entire MLLM. The third approach has the lowest computational cost and is therefore broadly accessible. To the best of our knowledge, only five PaP methods have been reported within the past year. All of these methods have been evaluated on one or more video question-answering benchmarks and have demonstrated improvements in long-video understanding. However, the methods were evaluated on different benchmarks using different MLLMs. We present a comprehensive evaluation of these five methods using three MLLMs across three long-video understanding benchmarks. Our results show that QAaF achieves the best performance in 13 of the 15 aggregate evaluation settings, while FOCUS ranks second overall. These results provide a common experimental reference for comparing training-free keyframe-selection methods for MLLMs.
Dilip Sarkar, Md. Safayet Islam, Liang Liang
Department of Computer Science University of Miami Coral Gables