SPARE: Shared Perception and Adaptive Retrieval of Evidence for Streaming Video Understanding
Authors: Senbin Xu, Zijun Zhang, Xinhua Wu, Li He, Jubo Feng, Li Qiao, Zhen Gao, Yan Zhang, Jixiang Luo, Rongrong Ji
Organizations: Xiamen University · Beijing Institute of Technology · Fudan University · Shanghai Jiao Tong University · University of Hong Kong · China Telecom
Streaming video understanding requires answering questions from the observed video, with evidence drawn from recent observations or earlier events. Historical context can improve recall but may interfere with judgments based on recent frames. Its usefulness depends on both when it is introduced and which clips are selected, while relevance alone does not guarantee sufficient evidence for an answer. We propose SPARE, a framework that combines adaptive historical retrieval with visual encoder sharing. A lightweight gate predicts whether recent observations provide sufficient evidence to answer the question. When additional evidence is predicted to be necessary, a multimodal embedding model retrieves relevant historical clips to supplement the current context. LoRA instruction tuning trains the understanding model to use recent observations and retrieved history jointly and abstain when the evidence remains insufficient. To reduce redundant visual parameters, the understanding and retrieval branches share a visual encoder while retaining separate language backbones. Four linear adapters align the shared features with the retrieval model through distillation at the visual token and final retrieval embedding levels. With visual-only inputs, SPARE achieves 77.78% on the evaluated Real-time and Backward task groups of OVO-Bench and 73.31% on StreamingBench. Compared with Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct evaluated at 2 fps, SPARE improves accuracy by 20.68 percentage points on OVO-Bench and 14.15 percentage points on StreamingBench.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Effect of historical context on OVO-Bench ( Li et al., 2025 ) . We report question-level accuracy within (a) Real-time (837 questions) and (b) Backward (631 questions). All configurations use Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct with identical resolution and prompts, varying only input frame selection and count. Recent-4 uses up to four recent frames; +Uniform-4 and +Retrieval add up to four historical frames via uniform sampling or retrieval with CLIP ViT-L/14 or Qwen3-VL-Embedding-2B. Both retrieval variants retrieve history for every question without gating. Global-32 uniformly samples up to 32 frames from the observed video prefix. Blue dashed lines indicate Recent-4; bold entries highlight Qwen-based retrieval.
Figure 2: Overview of SPARE . Memory construction: the two branches share visual-encoder weights and index historical clips by embeddings and timestamps. Adaptive answering: a gate reads the current-input prefill state and triggers historical retrieval when evidence is insufficient. The retrieved clips and current window form a fresh second-pass input; otherwise, the first-pass answer is retained. LoRA tuning supports answering or abstention from the supplied evidence.
Figure 3: Shared visual encoding for understanding and retrieval. Left: separate visual encoders serve the two language models. Right: SPARE reuses the understanding model’s visual encoder and adapts its three DeepStack merger features and final merger features through four linear adapters for the retrieval branch. Each branch retains its own language backbone.
Model
Frames / sampling
StreamingBench
OVO-Bench
RTVU
OSU
CU
All
Real-Time Visual Perception
Backward Tracing
All
OCR
ACR
ATR
STU
FPD
OJR
Avg.
EPM
ASI
HLD
Avg.
Offline Video LLMs
LLaVA-OneVision2-8B
16
74.20
37.90
44.80
59.60
72.48
61.47
71.55
63.48
65.35
60.87
65.87
56.57
64.86
11.29
44.24
55.05
InternVL2-8B
32 / ≤ 64
67.60
35.20
36.90
53.58
69.80
59.63
67.24
50.56
71.29
57.61
62.69
52.53
58.11
25.81
45.48
54.08
Dispider-7B (offline)
16/clip
68.72
42.20
29.90
54.20
57.05
49.54
62.07
44.94
60.40
51.63
54.27
48.82
55.41
4.30
36.18
45.22
Table 1: Measured results on OVO-Bench and StreamingBench (%). For SPARE, a+b denotes the frame counts in the first and retrieval-triggered second answering passes. Native and shared ViT refer to the retrieval branch’s visual encoder. Bold denotes the best result and underlining the second-best result in each column, including ties.
Policy
Real-time
Backward
All
History use
Recent-only
81.06
68.00
74.53
0.00
Uniform history
81.05
70.70
75.87
99.46
Always retrieve
81.16
73.22
77.19
99.46
Gated retrieve
81.93
73.62
77.78
40.74
Table 2: Retrieval policies with the same shared ViT, LoRA adapter, and retrieval gate on OVO-Bench (%). All is the mean of the Real-time and Backward task-macro accuracies. History use is the fraction of questions whose final responses use historical frames.
Current frames
Frames/ clip
Retrieved clips
Score (%)
2
–
–
72.47
4
–
–
74.53
8
–
–
74.87
4
2
1
76.70
4
4
1
77.78
4
8
1
77.02
Table 3: The impact of frames on OVO-Bench.
Figure 4: Efficiency on OVO-Bench. (a) Mean per-question peak answering-context length and accuracy on all Real-time and Backward questions. (b) Mean time to first token on OVO-Bench’s Real-time and Backward tasks at 16, 64, and 256 observed frames.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Task family
CLIP
SigLIP2
Native Embedding-2B
Video classification
44.98
38.11
64.21
Video retrieval
24.67
32.78
47.48
Moment retrieval
25.12
27.50
49.84
Video QA
35.47
34.76
60.47
Overall
33.38
33.93
56.13
Appendix
Table 4: Top-1 accuracy on MMEB-V2 video tasks (%). Each task-family score averages its datasets equally; Overall averages all 18 datasets. Qwen uses its native visual encoder. Bold marks the highest accuracy in each row.
All 18 datasets
Text-to-video (5 datasets)
Metric
Native teacher
Shared student
Native teacher
Shared student
Top-1 accuracy
56.13
51.90
47.48
43.40
Top-5 success rate
87.25
84.83
72.09
68.09
Top-10 success rate
93.25
91.84
80.08
76.55
MRR ×100
69.49
66.06
58.74
54.77
Appendix
Table 5: Direct retrieval with native teacher and shared student on MMEB-V2. Accuracy and success rates are percentages; MRR is multiplied by 100. Each column is an unweighted mean over the indicated datasets. The five text-to-video datasets are DiDeMo, MSR-VTT, MSVD, VATEX, and YouCook2.
Task
Recent-only
Uniform history
Always retrieve
Gated retrieve
OCR
93.96
93.96
93.96
95.97
ACR
84.40
83.49
84.40
85.32
ATR
81.90
79.31
83.62
83.62
STU
70.79
70.79
68.54
70.79
FPD
73.27
77.23
73.27
73.27
OJR
82.07
81.52
83.15
82.61
Appendix
Table 6: Task-level accuracy for the shared-ViT, LoRA-enabled OVO-Bench policies (%). The first six tasks form Real-time and the final three form Backward. All weights the two task-group macro averages equally. Bold marks the highest score in each row, including ties.
Policy
Real-time
Backward
All
History use
Recent-only
81.11
50.39
65.75
0.00
Always retrieve
82.34
56.95
69.64
99.46
Gated retrieve
82.37
56.28
69.32
39.51
Appendix
Table 7: Retrieval-policy control with native visual encoders and no LoRA on the same 1,468 OVO-Bench questions (%). History use counts questions whose final responses use historical frames.
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 understanding models must answer queries at any moment during an ongoing stream, using only what they have observed so far and under fixed memory and computation budgets. Existing methods address this by adding memory banks, retrieval modules, or visual token compression to preserve long-range history. However, strong recent-window baselines show that indiscriminate history injection can dilute current-scene perception, suggesting that the key challenge is not whether to use memory, but how to allocate it selectively. We formulate this as budgeted online latent evidence allocation and propose SelectStream, a selective latent-memory framework that keeps the current observation directly visible to a frozen VLM while exposing historical information only through a compact, query-conditioned evidence budget. Three coordinated mechanisms govern when to write, what to preserve, and how to retrieve: surprise-driven adaptive windowing, priority-preserving consolidation, and query-conditioned graph reasoning over a fixed-capacity latent memory graph. Retrieved evidence is calibrated and injected as latent tokens for answer generation, without replaying frames or growing the context with stream length. Experimental results show that SelectStream achieves strong online streaming performance and preserves general video understanding, reaching 82.67% on StreamingBench, 67.03% on OVO-Bench, and 74.4% average accuracy on offline video benchmarks, while outperforming strong recent-window baselines and prior streaming memory methods.
Haonan Ge, Yiwei Wang, Hang Wu +1
University of California, Santa Barbara · University of California, Merced · The University of Queensland
Streaming video understanding requires Video Large Language Models (Video-LLMs) to reason over continuous visual streams under causal constraints. As the visual history grows, a bounded visual?processing budget requires evidence selection that balances temporal recency with query relevance. Recent-only selection excludes potentially relevant historical evidence, whereas Semantic-only retrieval can displace useful recent context when relevance scores are ambiguous. We introduce WRWS (When to Retrieve, When to Stay), a training-free framework for uncertainty-adaptive evidence allocation. A lightweight external vision-language encoder scores query relevance across the observed history, while an adaptive allocation module uses the normalized entropy of the similarity distribution as a proxy for retrieval uncertainty. WRWS favors semantic retrieval when relevance cues are reliable and strengthens the recency prior under uncertainty. Following a retrieve-first, encode-later pipeline, WRWS selects evidence before target-model visual encoding, such that only the selected observations are processed by the costly target Video-LLM. Experiments across four Video-LLM families and multiple model scales demonstrate competitive accuracy on StreamingBench and OVO-Bench. In our efficiency evaluation, WRWS reduces average vision-to-answer time to 47.93% of the state-of-the-art method. Code will be released.
Streaming video understanding requires answering questions that arrive at arbitrary moments over an unbounded video stream. Existing systems primarily focus on what to retain in a bounded memory, yet access that memory using the same fixed-cost procedure for every query, despite substantial variation in the evidence required. We argue that deciding how deeply to access memory for each query is as important as deciding what the memory should store. To this end, we introduce StreamScout, an adaptive inference framework that maintains only a lightweight textual timeline in context as the stream unfolds. At query time, StreamScout progressively augments the timeline with up to three increasingly informative visual views: a glance at recent frames, a uniform look-back over the past stream, and query-salient retrieval. At each stage, the model answers immediately if the available evidence is sufficient; otherwise, it escalates to the next view. To improve this stop-or-escalate policy, we probe the cascade on an auxiliary set and distill the model's empirical competence boundary into supervision for a lightweight LoRA adaptation, yielding StreamScout-S. We further refine the policy through reinforcement learning, allowing the model to explore stopping behaviors beyond imitation of the distilled decisions, yielding StreamScout-R. Across three backbones and three streaming benchmarks, StreamScout and its variants consistently outperform prior streaming methods while substantially reducing inference cost and token consumption; on OVO-Bench, for instance, StreamScout-S improves Qwen3-VL-8B by 14.65 points while using 59% fewer tokens than uniform sampling and answering in 1.04 s on average.
Ce Zhang, Jing Bi, Jinxi He +9
Carnegie Mellon University · TikTok · University of Rochester +2