Recent progress in video large language models (Video-LLMs) has enabled strong offline reasoning over long and complex videos. However, real-world deployments increasingly require streaming perception and proactive interaction, where video frames arrive online and the system must decide not only what to respond, but also when to respond. In this work, we revisit proactive activation in streaming video as a structured sequence modeling problem, motivated by the observation that temporal transitions in streaming video naturally form span-structured activation patterns. To capture this span-level structure, we model activation signals jointly over a sliding temporal window and update them iteratively as new frames arrive. We propose STRIDE (Structured Temporal Refinement with Iterative DEnoising), which employs a lightweight masked diffusion module at the activation interface to jointly predict and progressively refine activation signals across the window. Extensive experiments on diverse streaming benchmarks and downstream models demonstrate that STRIDE shows more reliable and temporally coherent proactive responses, significantly improving when-to-speak decision quality in online streaming scenarios.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of STRIDE , which operates in a streaming setting where frames arrive online. A lightweight activation model based on masked diffusion maintains an activation region over a sliding temporal window and iteratively denoises masked activation states to predict a coherent trigger segment. A trigger is issued only if an active span is sustained for a predefined span ratio. When activation is triggered, the accumulated frame context is forwarded to a downstream Video-LLM to generate the response.
Figure 2: Activation modeling and inference stage of STRIDE . Training applies sequence duplication and three masking strategies (boundary-anchored masking, span unmasking, full masking). During inference, the activation window slides with incoming frames, retaining confident past decisions while selectively re-masking and progressively denoising uncertain positions.
Table 1: Evaluation results on OVO-Bench Niu et al. (2025) . Baseline-AR uses autoregressive binary prediction. Offline models follow the original single-turn protocol with segmented clips, whereas streaming methods process frames sequentially.
Method
# of Frames
Real-Time Visual Understanding
Omni-Source Understanding
Contextual Understanding
Overall
OP
CR
CS
ATP
EU
TR
PR
SU
ACP
CT
Avg.
ER
SCU
SD
MA
Avg.
ACU
MCU
SQA
PO
Avg.
Avg.
Human
Human
-
89.47
92.00
93.60
91.47
95.65
92.52
88.00
88.75
89.74
91.30
91.46
88.00
88.24
93.60
90.27
90.26
88.80
90.40
95.00
100
93.55
91.66
Proprietary Models (Offline)
Gemini 1.5 pro Reid et al. (2024)
1 FPS
79.02
80.47
83.54
79.67
80.00
84.74
77.78
64.23
71.95
48.70
75.69
46.80
39.60
74.90
80.00
60.22
51.41
40.73
54.80
45.10
48.73
67.07
GPT-4o OpenAI (2024)
64
77.11
80.47
83.91
76.47
70.19
83.80
66.67
62.19
69.12
49.22
73.28
41.20
37.20
43.60
56.00
44.50
41.20
38.40
32.80
56.86
38.70
60.15
Table 2: Evaluation results on StreamingBench Lin et al. (2024b) . Baseline-AR uses autoregressive binary prediction. Offline models follow the original single-turn protocol with segmented clips, whereas streaming methods process frames sequentially.
Table 5
Figure 3: Activation transition frequency results around event boundaries on ET-Bench TVG. Baseline-AR model shows frequent oscillations near boundaries, whereas STRIDE produces more robust activation spans.
Figure 7
Appendix figures & tables19 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Videos
Items
Single
Multi
Segs
ActivityNet-Captions Caba Heilbron et al. [2015]
10,009
37,421
37,421
–
37,421
LITA Huang et al. [2024b]
10,000
32,489
32,489
–
32,489
YouCook2 Zhou et al. [2018]
1,333
11,480
10,337
1,143 ( × 7.7)
19,174
ET-Instruct Liu et al. [2024b]
91,121
136,072
71,966
64,106 ( × 5.1)
398,609
Charades Sigurdsson et al. [2016]
7,811
48,684
48,067
617 ( × 2.1)
49,374
CharadesEgo Sigurdsson et al. [2018]
6,158
61,575
57,828
3,747 ( × 2.0)
65,488
Appendix
Table 6: Training dataset statistics. Videos : number of source videos; Items : total annotation entries; Single : single-event entries; Multi : multi-event entries (average event count in parentheses); Segs : total training segments.
Config
Value
Input frames
1 FPS
LR scheduler
Linear warm-up with cosine decay
Warmup steps
512
Optimizer
AdamW ( β1=0.9 , β2=0.999 )
Global Batch size
256
Learning rate (lang. head)
3×10−5
Appendix
Table 7: Detailed training hyperparameters for STRIDE .
Figure 5: Sensitivity of STRIDE to the retention constant τ across five temporal understanding tasks (TVG, EPM, TAL, DVC, SLC) in ET-Bench Liu et al. [2024b] . The y -axis shows the score difference relative to each task’s average. Task-wise average scores are shown in the legend.
Method
Real-Time Visual Perception
Backward Tracing
Fwd. Act. Responding
Overall
OCR
ACR
ATR
STU
FPD
OJR
Avg.
EPM
ASI
HLD
Avg.
REC
SSR
CRR
Avg.
Avg.
Gemma3-4B Team et al. [2025]
65.8
48.6
56.0
36.0
66.3
50.0
53.78
44.4
41.9
3.2
29.83
14.4
61.4
52.5
42.77
42.13
+ STRIDE -2B
73.2
60.6
64.7
39.3
71.3
56.5
60.93
47.8
52.0
4.8
34.87
42.6
64.6
60.0
55.73
50.51
+ STRIDE -4B
75.2
56.9
67.2
40.4
67.3
56.5
60.58
51.5
48.0
4.3
34.60
46.5
66.2
60.0
57.57
50.92
InternVL3-8B Wang et al. [2025b]
65.8
52.3
68.1
51.1
71.3
62.0
61.77
58.9
66.9
9.7
45.17
36.6
64.1
43.3
48.00
51.64
+ STRIDE -2B
75.8
54.1
80.2
56.7
74.3
65.2
67.72
58.9
65.5
11.3
45.23
40.1
67.7
66.2
58.00
56.98
Appendix
Table 8: Scalability analysis on activation backbone scale ( STRIDE -2B vs. 4B) on OVO-Bench Niu et al. [2025] across multiple downstream Video-LLMs.
Method
Real-Time Visual Understanding
Omni-Source Understanding
Contextual Understanding
Overall
OP
CR
CS
ATP
EU
TR
PR
SU
ACP
CT
Avg.
ER
SCU
SD
MA
Avg.
ACU
MCU
SQA
PO
Avg.
Avg.
Gemma3-4B Team et al. [2025]
63.8
69.5
68.8
54.4
60.2
65.1
59.3
40.7
62.7
21.8
57.49
28.8
31.2
30.4
46.4
34.20
34.4
31.2
38.8
12.4
29.20
40.30
+ STRIDE -2B
66.8
71.9
66.6
57.2
66.5
70.7
60.2
43.1
65.0
23.8
60.00
35.6
31.6
36.0
44.0
36.80
33.6
35.2
44.8
41.6
38.80
45.20
+ STRIDE -4B
66.2
63.3
68.1
58.1
67.1
71.7
63.0
41.5
66.7
21.2
59.93
32.8
30.4
36.0
46.4
36.40
35.2
36.8
48.0
44.0
41.00
45.78
InternVL3-8B Wang et al. [2025b]
74.9
82.0
75.7
61.2
72.0
67.6
74.1
66.7
78.1
34.2
68.71
40.4
27.6
38.8
45.6
38.10
38.0
26.0
36.8
31.2
33.00
46.60
+ STRIDE -2B
74.9
78.9
76.7
68.6
77.0
77.3
77.8
71.5
83.0
33.2
72.45
39.6
22.4
44.0
50.8
39.20
34.0
35.2
43.2
42.8
38.80
50.15
Appendix
Table 9: Scalability analysis on activation backbone scale ( STRIDE -2B vs. 4B) on StreamingBench Lin et al. [2024b] across multiple downstream Video-LLMs.
Figure 6: Qualitative example from ET-Bench (TVG).
Figure 7: Qualitative example from ET-Bench (TVG).
Figure 8: Qualitative example from ET-Bench (EPM).
Figure 9: Qualitative example from ET-Bench (TAL).
Figure 10: Qualitative example from ET-Bench (DVC).
Figure 11: Qualitative example from ET-Bench (SLC).
Figure 12: Qualitative example from OVO-Bench (EPM).
Figure 13: Qualitative example from OVO-Bench (OJR).
Figure 14: Qualitative example from OVO-Bench (OJR).
Figure 15: Qualitative example from StreamingBench (Attribute Recognition).
Figure 16: Qualitative example from StreamingBench (Object Recognition).
Figure 17: Qualitative example from StreamingBench (Text-Rich Understanding).
Figure 18: Failure Case from StreamingBench (Proactive Output).
Figure 19: Failure Case from StreamingBench (Scene Understanding).
Streaming video understanding studies how AI systems interpret continuous video in real time while retaining useful history and responding at the right moment.
Streaming video models should respond the moment an event unfolds, not after the moment has passed. Yet existing online VideoQA benchmarks remain largely retrospective. They pause the video at fixed timestamps, pose questions about current or past events, and score models only at those moments. This protocol leaves streaming predictions untested. To close this gap, we introduce SPOT-Bench, featuring multi-turn proactive queries that evaluate general streaming perception and assistive capabilities required by an always-on, real-time assistant. SPOT-Bench comes with Timeliness-F1, a consolidated metric that measures streaming predictions by their temporal precision and balanced coverage across the entire video. Our benchmark reveals: (i) offline models detect events reliably but spam predictions unprompted; (ii) post-training for silence reduces spamming but induces unresponsiveness; (iii) half of the streaming video expects no response, which we term dead-time - compute spent here does not affect response latency. These findings motivate AsynKV, a training-free streaming adaptation of offline models, that retains their event perception while improving their streaming behavior. AsynKV features a long-short term memory, utilized efficiently by scaling compute during dead-time. It serves as a strong baseline on SPOT-Bench, outperforming existing streaming models, and achieves state-of-the-art on retrospective benchmarks.
Recent advances in Streaming Video Understanding has enabled a new interaction paradigm where models respond proactively to user queries. Current proactive VideoLLMs rely on per-frame triggering decision making, which suffers from an efficiency-accuracy dilemma. We propose Em-Garde, a novel framework that decouples semantic understanding from streaming perception. At query time, the Instruction-Guided Proposal Parser transforms user queries into structured, perceptually grounded visual proposals; during streaming, a Lightweight Proposal Matching Module performs efficient embedding-based matching to trigger responses. Experiments on StreamingBench and OVO-Bench demonstrate consistent improvements over prior models in proactive response accuracy and efficiency, validating an effective solution for proactive video understanding under strict computational constraints.
Yikai Zheng, Xin Ding, Yifan Yang +6
Institute for AI Industry Research (AIR), Tsinghua University · University of Science and Technology of China · 4Microsoft Research Asia +1
Despite the remarkable progress of Video Large Language Models (Video-LLMs), current online architectures still struggle to simultaneously process continuous video streams, decide autonomously when to respond, and preserve long-horizon contextual memory. These obstacles undermine real-time responsiveness and cause severe forgetting throughout prolonged interactions. In this work, we introduce LiveStarPro, a live streaming assistant that is designed for proactive video understanding over long-horizon streams. The design of LiveStarPro rests on three complementary components. The first component is Streaming Verification Decoding (SVeD), an inference framework that identifies the appropriate response timing through single-pass perplexity verification, thereby eliminating the dependency on explicit silence tokens. The second component is Streaming Causal Attention Masks (SCAM), a training strategy that enforces incremental video-language alignment over variable-length streams. The third component is Tree-Structured Hierarchical Memory (TSHM), a recursive memory architecture that organizes evicted historical information into event chains and consequently enables efficient retrieval from effectively unbounded video streams. To facilitate a comprehensive evaluation under realistic online conditions, we further present OmniStarPro, a large-scale benchmark that spans 15 diverse real-world scenarios and that extends to hour-scale streams for the assessment of long-term recall. Extensive experiments demonstrate that LiveStarPro consistently surpasses existing methods, attaining a 28.9% improvement in semantic correctness and an 18.2% reduction in timing error, while its streaming key-value cache further yields a 1.58x inference speedup over the same model without caching. The model and the code are publicly available at https://github.com/sotayang/LiveStarPro.