Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have advanced open-world action understanding and can be adapted as generative classifiers for closed-set settings by autoregressively generating action labels as text. However, this approach is inefficient, and shared subwords across action labels introduce semantic overlap, leading to ambiguity in generation. In contrast, discriminative classifiers learn task-specific representations with clear decision boundaries, enabling efficient one-step classification without autoregressive decoding. We first compare generative and discriminative classifiers with MLLMs for closed-set action understanding, revealing the superior accuracy and efficiency of the latter. To bridge the performance gap, we design strategies that elevate generative classifiers toward performance comparable with discriminative ones. Furthermore, we show that generative modeling can complement discriminative classifiers, leading to better performance while preserving efficiency. To this end, we propose Generation-Assisted Discriminative~(GAD) classifier for closed-set action understanding. GAD operates only during fine-tuning, preserving full compatibility with MLLM pretraining. Extensive experiments on temporal action understanding benchmarks demonstrate that GAD improves both accuracy and efficiency over generative methods, achieving state-of-the-art results on four tasks across five datasets, including an average 2.5% accuracy gain and 3x faster inference on our largest COIN benchmark.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: T-SNE plot comparing feature spaces of generative and discriminative classifiers on CrossTask dataset for actions sharing the verb ‘add’. Generative feature - mean of output token features; Discriminative feature - the learnable token feature.
Figure 2: Comparison between different architectures for downstream video-related recognition tasks: (1) Generative classifier: treating action labels as free text. (2) Discriminative classifier: learning an extra representation for downstream tasks. (3) Generation-assisted discriminative (GAD) classifier: learning an extra representation that is regularized through task-related generation.
LLM
Model
THUMOS’14
CrossTask
EPIC-Kitchens-100
Ego4DGoalStep
S-F1 / P-F1
FPS
S-F1 / P-F1
FPS
S-F1 / P-F1
FPS
S-F1 / P-F1
FPS
Llama3.2- 1B-Instruct
Gen
56.9 / 38.8
38.3
46.8 / 31.7
44.0
16.7 / 13.9
28.8
8.9 / 3.4
17.8
Disc
57.8 / 40.1
58.0
48.8 / 34.0
59.4
23.2 / 19.3
51.1
10.6 / 4.1
53.6
Qwen2.5- 0.5B-Instruct
Gen
55.8 / 38.9
30.2
44.0 / 28.6
36.3
16.2 / 13.4
26.6
8.8 / 3.2
12.3
Disc
57.3 / 39.6
48.8
45.3 / 29.6
52.8
22.0 / 18.3
48.6
9.9 / 3.4
52.1
Table 1: Generative (Gen) vs. discriminative (Disc) classifier on OAD tasks. The runtime analysis is performed on a single NVIDIA RTX A5000 GPU.
Figure 4Figure 5
Model
OAD Benchmark (segment-F1 / point-F1)
COIN (Top-1 acc.)
CrossTask
EPIC-Kitchens-100
Ego4DGoalStep
Step
Next
Task
Disc
48.8 / 34.0
23.2 / 19.3
10.6 / 4.1
64.1
50.1
92.8
GAD (label_2stage)
41.8 / 26.7
9.3 / 6.7
5.9 / 1.7
35.9
28.0
85.5
GAD (label_joint)
49.1 / 33.9
23.6 / 19.6
10.8 / 4.1
64.4
50.4
93.2
GAD (context)
50.3 / 34.5
24.1 / 20.1
11.0 / 4.3
65.3
51.4
93.5
Table 4: Comparison with GAD variants with Llama3.2-1B-Instruct.
Model
OAD Benchmark. (frame acc./segment F1/point F1)
CrossTask
EPIC-Kitchens-100
Ego4DGoalStep
Disc
81.7/48.8/34.0
34.8/23.2/19.3
33.9/10.6/4.1
GAD
81.8/50.3/34.5
35.1/24.1/20.1
34.4/11.0/4.3
w/o [CLS]
81.5/49.2/33.8
34.6/20.7/17.7
33.7/8.6/3.6
GAD _prev_disc
80.8/48.2/31.6
34.8/23.6/19.3
33.2/10.1/3.8
GAD _prev_disc+
80.9/49.5/32.7
34.7/23.0/19.6
33.3/10.6/4.0
Table 5: Ablation studies of our GAD classifier on OAD tasks.
Model
OAD Benchmark (segment-F1 / point-F1)
THUMOS’14
CrossTask
EPIC-Kitchens-100
Ego4DGoalStep
Testra ( Zhao & Krähenbühl, 2022 )
43.0 / 32.0
48.4 / 33.8
16.5 / 14.7
8.7 / 3.5
MAT ( Wang et al., 2023 )
49.4 / 34.2
49.7 / 34.2
17.5 / 15.5
9.5 / 3.8
CMeRT ( Pang et al., 2025 )
48.9 / 34.6
50.1 / 34.3
17.7 / 15.8
9.7 / 3.9
Disc (Llama3.2-1B-Instruct)
57.8 / 40.1
48.8 / 34.0
23.2 / 19.3
10.6 / 4.1
GAD (Llama3.2-1B-Instruct)
58.1 / 40.2
50.3 / 34.5
24.1 / 20.1
11.0 / 4.3
Table 6: Comparison with SOTA on OAD tasks.
Model
COIN Benchmark (Top-1 acc.)
Step
Next
Task
VideoTaskGraph ( Ashutosh et al., 2023 )
57.2
40.2
90.5
Videollm-online-8B ( Chen et al., 2024a )
63.1
49.1
92.7
Videollm-MoD-8B ( Wu et al., 2024 )
63.4
49.7
92.8
StreamMind-8B ( Ding et al., 2025 )
63.7
49.9
93.2
Disc (Llama3.2-1B-Instruct)
64.1
50.1
92.8
Table 7: Comparison with SOTA on COIN Benchmark.
Figure 5: Qualitative results on the step recognition for Generative (Gen) vs. discriminative (Disc) classifier. Red text denotes false predictions and green correct predictions. Callouts display GAD generation outputs.
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: T-SNE plot comparing feature spaces of the generative and discriminative classifier on CrossTask dataset for actions sharing the verb ‘add’. Generative feature is derived from token representations using four strategies: mean, max, first, or last token. Discriminative feature is the representation of the learnable token.
Task
Query
Online action detection
What is the action in the last frame?
Step recognition
What is the action in the video?
Step forecasting
What is the next action in the video?
Task recognition
What is the overall activity in the video?
Appendix
Table 8: Task-specific queries.
Datasets
long-term (s)
short-term (s)
sample rate
visual feature@FPS
THUMOS’14
128
32
1
ResNet50@4
CrossTask
128
20
1
DINOV2@1
EPIC-Kitchens-100
128
20
1
TSN@4
Ego4DGoalStep
128
16
1
DINOV2@1
Appendix
Table 9: Hyperparameters for OAD setting.
Figure 14Figure 15Figure 16
Model
OAD Benchmark. (frame acc./segment F1/point F1)
CrossTask
EPIC-Kitchens-100
Ego4DGoalStep
Gen
81.3/46.8/31.7
32.9/16.7/13.9
32.9/8.9/3.4
Disc
81.7/48.8/34.0
34.8/23.2/19.3
33.9/10.6/4.1
GAD _gen
81.5/46.8/31.8
32.1/16.0/13.2
31.4/7.8/3.0
GAD _emb
81.6/49.1/33.9
34.8/23.6/19.6
34.0/10.8/4.1
GAD _seq-g_gen
81.2/46.3/31.3
33.3/17.1/14.2
32.5/8.9/3.3
Appendix
Table 10: Discriminative and generative performance in the proposed GAD classifier, where generative modeling is for labeling task same as the discriminative learning.
Model
OAD Benchmak. DScore
CrossTask
EPIC-Kitchens-100
Ego4DGoalStep
Gen
0.76
1.3
1.8
Disc
0.66
0.79
1.5
GAD
0.67
0.80
1.49
Appendix
Table 11: Comparison of misclassification diversity for generative (Gen), discriminative (Disc), and generation-assisted discriminative (GAD) classifiers.
Model
OAD Benchmark. (frame acc./segment F1/point F1)
CrossTask
EPIC-Kitchens-100
Ego4DGoalStep
Disc
81.7/48.8/34.0
34.8/23.2/19.3
33.9/10.6/4.1
GAD
81.8/50.3/34.5
35.1/24.1/20.1
34.4/11.0/4.3
GAD _prev_disc
80.8/48.2/31.6
34.8/23.6/19.3
33.2/10.1/3.8
GAD _prev_disc+
80.9/49.5/32.7
34.7/23.0/19.6
33.3/10.6/4.0
GAD _next
81.6/49.8/34.3
34.6/23.7/19.8
34.1/10.8/4.2
Appendix
Table 12: Ablation studies of our GAD classifier on OAD tasks.
Figure 7: Quantitative analysis of discriminative ouputs (Disc) and generative outputs (Gen & Gen_ex). Larger areas indicate higher occurrence. Checks and crosses denote correct and incorrect outputs, respectively.
Figure 8: Qualitative results on the OAD and step recognition tasks. Gen - generative classifier, Disc- discriminative classifier. Text in red denotes false predictions, while in green represents correct predictions. Callouts display the generation outputs produced by our GAD. Bar charts in the bottom show predictions for streaming videos.
Model
OAD Benchmark. (frame acc./segment F1/point F1)
THUMOS’14
CrossTask
EPIC-Kitchens-100
Ego4DGoalStep
Testra ( Zhao & Krähenbühl, 2022 )
76.9/43.0/32.0
81.2/48.4/33.8
34.7/16.5/14.7
31.7/8.7/3.5
MAT ( Wang et al., 2023 )
78.4/49.4/34.2
81.4/49.7/34.2
35.0/17.5/15.5
32.9/9.5/3.8
CMeRT ( Pang et al., 2025 )
78.2/48.9/34.6
81.3/50.1/34.3
35.2 /17.7/15.8
32.8/9.7/3.9
Gen (Llama3.2-1B-Instruct)
78.6/56.9/38.8
81.3/46.8/31.7
32.9/16.7/13.9
32.8/8.9/3.4
Disc (Llama3.2-1B-Instruct)
78.5/57.8/40.1
81.7/48.8/34.0
34.8/23.2/19.3
33.9/10.6/4.1
Appendix
Table 13: Comparison with SOTA on OAD tasks.
Model
OAD Benchmark (segment-F1 / point-F1)
CrossTask
EPIC-Kitchens-100
Ego4DGoalStep
Gen
46.8 / 31.7
16.7 / 13.9
8.9 / 3.4
Testra [1]
48.4 / 33.8
16.5 / 14.7
8.7 / 3.5
MAT [2]
49.7 / 34.2
17.5 / 15.5
9.5 / 3.8
CMeRT [3]
50.1 / 34.3
17.7 / 15.8
9.7 / 3.9
Disc
48.8 / 34.0
23.2 / 19.3
10.6 / 4.1
Appendix
Table 14: Comparison with SOTA on OAD tasks.
Model
Step
Next
GAD (fine-tuned)
67.3
51.6
Videollm-online-8B (open-ended)
4.8
3.5
Qwen2.5-VL-7B (open-ended)
16.1
8.9
Qwen2.5-VL-7B (categories in prompt)
11.9
6.5
Appendix
Table 15: Zero-shot performance of existing MLLMs on COIN dataset.
Epoch 0
Epoch 1
Epoch 2
Epoch 3
Epoch 4
Epoch 5
Memorization_ratio (on Breakfast)
0.0
98.1
99.6
99.8
99.9
99.9
Accuracy on COIN (test set)
8.3
77.0
85.3
91.3
92.8
92.7
Accuracy on Breakfast (unseen)
6.3
4.5
3.5
3.6
3.6
3.6
Appendix
Table 16: Performance-generalization trade-off on our generative baseline.
Figure 9: Confusion matrix comparison on CrossTask for actions shared verb ’add’. Generative classifier incurs more diverse misclassifications.