Organizations: School of Computer Science and Technology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · State Key Laboratory of AI Safety, Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences · Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence · Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences · School of Cyber Security, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · School of Computer Science and Technology, Beijing Institute of Technology
Recent studies have made notable progress in video representation learning by transferring image-pretrained models to video tasks, typically with complex temporal modules and video fine-tuning. However, fine-tuning heavy modules may compromise inter-video semantic separability, i.e., the essential ability to distinguish objects across videos. While reducing the tunable parameters hinders their intra-video temporal consistency, which is required for stable representations of the same object within a video. This dilemma indicates a potential trade-off between the intra-video temporal consistency and inter-video semantic separability during image-to-video transfer. To this end, we propose the Consistency-Separability Trade-off Transfer Learning (Co-Settle) framework, which applies a lightweight projection layer on top of the frozen image-pretrained encoder to adjust representation space with a temporal cycle consistency objective and a semantic separability constraint. We further provide a theoretical support showing that the optimized projection yields a better trade-off between the two properties under appropriate conditions. Experiments on eight image-pretrained models demonstrate consistent improvements across multiple levels of video tasks with only five epochs of self-supervised training. The code is available at https://github.com/yafeng19/Co-Settle.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of video representation quality with recent visual representation learning models on the Kinetics-400 [ 55 ] validation set. Favorable video representations should exhibit strong intra-video temporal consistency (lower intra-video distance Dintra ) and clear inter-video semantic separability (higher inter-video distance Dinter ) jointly, yet the two objectives often compete since the two distances co-vary. Applying our method to image-pretrained models leads to consistent improvements on the margin of inter- and intra-video distance D=Dinter−γDintra (detailed in Sec. 5.3 ), indicating a better trade-off between the two properties, and therefore leading to improved performance on video downstream tasks.
Figure 2: Overview of our image-to-video transfer learning framework. Two frames are sampled from each video to construct a cyclic sequence. A frozen image-pretrained encoder extracts patch-level features, which are then mapped by a learnable projection layer. The projection layer is trained with a temporal cycle-consistency loss and a semantic separability constraint for representation adjustment, thereby promoting a better trade-off between intra-video temporal consistency and inter-video semantic separability.
Figure 3: Left : Observations on shortcuts. Patches with the same color box denote correspondence. Middle : Overview of our PEA strategy. Right : Cycle-consistent accuracy and downstream performance dynamics during training with or without our PEA strategy on MAE encoder.
Table 1: Comparison with image and video representation learning methods on three dense-level video downstream tasks. Results marked with † are reported from prior works; ‡ denotes evaluations based on the official pretrained weights. The best results are highlighted in bold . INet, K400, WIT, and LAION represent ImageNet-1k [ 25 ] , Kinetics-400 [ 55 ] , WIT-400M [ 82 ] , and LAION-400M [ 87 ] datasets.
Figure 4: Evaluation results on frame-level and video-level tasks based on four representative image models.
Features
BADJA
δseg
δ3px
DINO v2
62.73
8.85
+ Ours
70.52
8.86
Features
TAP-DAVIS
δavgx
OA
DINO v2
64.68
81.98
Table 2: Results of integration into video dense tracking pipeline.
Table 3: Efficiency and performance comparison with image-to-video transfer methods. † marks the costs from prior studies.
Type
Method
Dinter
Dintra
D(↑)
Cyc. Acc. (↑)
Video Pretrained
SiamMAE
0.5067
0.1330
0.4668
0.4100
CropMAE
0.5216
0.1736
0.4695
0.6522
RSP
0.4662
0.2130
0.4023
0.5990
Image Pretrained + Ours
MAE
0.3122
0.1131
0.2783
0.1366
MAE + Ours
0.5073
0.1834
0.4523
0.7203
I-JEPA
0.2572
0.1425
0.2145
0.1192
Table 4: Validation results on distance-based trade-off metrics.
Table 5: Ablation results on the components, structures, and training configurations of our method. The best and secondary best results are highlighted in bold and underlined . Default settings are marked with blue .
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Notations
Descriptions
D
Training dataset.
H/W/C
The height/width/channel dimension of a frame.
T
The number of frames in a video.
V
A video containing T frames.
vt
The frame at the moment t in a video, vt∈RH×W×C .
vt(i)
A frame patch of vt , vt∈RH×W×C .
Appendix
Table 6: A summary of key notations and descriptions used in the Method Section.
Notations
Descriptions
d
The embedding dimension of a frame patch.
λ
The strength of the constraint term.
f(⋅)
The image-pretrained encoder, f:RH×W×C→RN×d .
g(⋅)
The projection layer, g:RN×d→RN×d .
zi
The latent representation of an input patch.
zˉi
The mean representation of video Vi , zˉi=Ez∈f(Vi)[z] .
Appendix
Table 7: A summary of key notations and descriptions used in the Theoretical Analysis Section.
Figure 5: Comparison of several categories of video representation learning methods with ours.
Table 8: Summary of hyperparameter settings used during training and evaluation.
Method
γ
Method
γ
MAE
0.1855
MoCov3
0.3321
MAE + Ours
0.3289
MoCov3 + Ours
0.3053
I-JEPA
0.2283
iBOT
0.2817
I-JEPA + Ours
0.2645
iBOT + Ours
0.3084
CLIP
0.3365
DINO
0.3378
CLIP + Ours
0.3876
DINO + Ours
0.3505
Appendix
Table 9: The scale factor γ=Dintraori/Dinterori and the average scale factor for each model.
Table 10: Evaluation results on frame-level and video-level tasks based on representative image models. The best results are marked in bold .
Figure 6: Cycle-consistent accuracy and downstream performance during training with or without the PEA strategies across three tasks based on MAE ( line 1 ) and DINO ( line 2 ).
Type
Method
Backbone
DAVIS-2017
J&Fm
Jm
Fm
Dedicated VOS Systems
STCN [ 22 ]
ResNet50
85.4
82.2
88.6
SwinB-AOT-L [ 116 ]
Swin-B
85.4
82.4
88.4
SimVOS-B [ 112 ]
ViT-B/16
88.0
85.0
91.0
Cutie-base [ 21 ]
ResNet50
87.9
84.6
91.1
Segmentation Foundation Models
SAM 2 [ 84 ]
Hiera-B+
90.2
87.0
93.4
Appendix
Table 11: Extended comparison with representative methods on the DAVIS-2017 validation set. Methods are grouped by their core settings for a broader reference.
Comparisons in video self-supervised learning often evaluate complete training recipes rather than isolating the method itself: architecture, objective, data exposure, schedule, scale, and decoder capacity can all vary at once. This makes it hard to identify which choices yield motion-prioritized representations, whose gains concentrate on frame-to-frame change while retaining useful appearance. We address this with a matched 4×6=24 architecture-objective study at roughly 170M ~ 190M encoder scale on ∼1.7M OpenVid and Moments-in-Time v2 clips for 8 epochs, and propose TT-VidT. TT-VidT combines a DINOv3-initialized ViT-B/16 per-frame spatial path with a compact Temporal Transfer Layer, trained by Diff Compression to reconstruct target frames from a first-frame appearance anchor and frame-specific motion tokens. The sweep shows that TT3D with Diff Compression, not either component alone, enters the strongest motion-sensitive regime, and decoder ablations favor a compact video-pretrained decoder. In final comparison, TT-VidT leads Jester, Something-Something V2, ARID, and Diving48 fine-tuning simultaneously, improving over the strongest non-TT row by 54% ~ 121%, while using 48% fewer encoder FLOPs than DisMo and 55% fewer than VideoMAE or V-JEPA2. HMDB51, IARD, and EPIC-Kitchens bound the claim.
Shih-Ying Yeh, Daniel Z. Kaplan, Xuehai Wang +3
National Tsing Hua University · Comfy Org Research · Karolinska Institutet +2
We introduce VideoMSN, a Masked Siamese Network framework for efficient self-supervised spatio-temporal representation learning in videos. Instead of relying on heavy 3D architectures or reconstruction-based autoencoders for learning with unlabeled data, we repurpose standard image Vision Transformers by representing videos as super images which are grids composed of frames sampled from videos. From each super image, we construct two views: one with spatial patch masking and the other with temporal frame masking, ensuring no information leakage across frames. A shared Vision Transformer (ViT) encoder aligns their embeddings using a masked Siamese loss, capturing both motion and appearance cues without reconstruction. Our decoder-free formulation leverages an image foundation model towards efficient video representation learning. Starting from pretrained DINO-v3 and DeiT-v3 image encoders, VideoMSN achieves state-of-the-art performance on Kinetics-400, UCF101, and HMDB51 while requiring up to 32× fewer and 160× fewer video pretraining epochs compared to prior video self-supervised learning methods. Our proposed approach also shows strong performance in low-shot classification, confirming the transferability of the learned representations in a label-scarce scenario. Project Page: https://cvir.github.io/projects/videomsn.
Owais Iqbal, Sudipta Sarkar, Shyam Marjit +3
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, India · Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, India · École de technologie supérieure Montreal, Canada
Understanding motion in video is a fundamental challenge for visual learning, as frame-to-frame change entangles two sources of dynamics: camera motion and object motion. This decomposition has remained underexplored in representation learning, partly because these factors are tightly coupled in natural videos and difficult to supervise separately. Yet recovering it is important for learning robust motion representations that separate meaningful object dynamics from camera-induced variation. We study whether such structured motion representations can be recovered from frozen features of a pretrained image vision transformer. We propose the Structured Dynamics Model (SDM), which explicitly separates the dominant source of temporal change from residual dynamics through future-feature prediction, rather than representing video change with a single entangled latent or with unstructured, spatially dense transition tokens. Training combines self-supervised learning on real video with weak supervision of scene dynamics on synthetic Kubric data. We evaluate SDM on ProbeMotion, a new evaluation suite spanning synthetic and real videos with camera motion, object motion, and combined dynamics. SDM outperforms backbone baselines using global CLS or average-pooled features, and compares favorably to strongly supervised representations such as VGGT on several probes, despite using substantially weaker supervision. These results suggest that pretrained image models can be readily repurposed into structured video-dynamics representations, providing a useful inductive bias for learning and analyzing latent video dynamics.
Lukas Knobel, Andrew Zisserman, Yuki M. Asano
Fundamental AI Lab, UTN · VGG, University of Oxford