Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) face significant scalability challenges in long-video understanding due to quadratic attention complexity and context window constraints. Existing retrieval-based approaches typically rely on supervised learning from static keyframe annotations. However, these label priors often fail to align with the actual information required by downstream MLLMs for complex reasoning, creating a misalignment between the training target and inference needs. To bridge this gap, we propose a probabilistic framework that reformulates frame selection as latent-variable inference. We first initialize a lightweight policy using supervised learning to capture general visual saliency. Then, we treat a frozen MLLM as a task environment and use its answer likelihood as dense task evidence to refine the policy via Bayesian Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). Within this formulation, the negative log-likelihood (NLL) over ground-truth answer tokens provides a principled dense reward, while a prior-matching KL term preserves semantic consistency with the elicited label prior. This process transitions the selection principle from static label priors to task evidence. Extensive experiments on Video-MME, MLVU, and LongVideoBench demonstrate that our selector achieves competitive accuracy with MLLM-based scorers while retaining the inference efficiency of lightweight methods. The selector is trained once with a frozen MLLM environment and transfers directly to multiple downstream MLLMs without retraining. Code is available at github.com/Miraclecsc/Frame_Selection_GRPO.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The overall framework of our methods. (a) Keyframe Selector. The lightweight selector ( fθ ) comprises stacked Video-Text Fusion Transformers. It modulates frame features with query semantics to output importance logits, then parameterizing a Plackett-Luce distribution. (b) Stage I: Label Prior Elicitation. We utilize keyframe label annotations to construct a Label Prior . The selector is trained via pairwise ranking loss to align its predicted logits with the label logits, establishing a robust initialization. (c) Stage II:Task-Evidence Posterior Inference. We freeze the MLLM and treat it as a frozen task environment. The selector performs Group Sampling to propose discrete frame subsets ( z ). The MLLM evaluates these subsets to provide dense NLL rewards ( R ) and advantages ( A ). The policy is refined via Bayesian GRPO to maximize task evidence while maintaining KL-regularization towards the label prior.
Method
# Frames
Video-MME
LVB
MLVU
Short
Medium
Long
Overall
Needle-QA
Avg
Avg. Video Duration
1.3min
9min
41min
17min
12min
12min
Uniform Sampling Baseline
Uniform
8
61.7
50.6
45.7
52.6
52.6
62.8
56.1
Uniform
32
71.4
60.8
49.2
60.5
56.3
72.4
62.2
Lightweight Scoring Methods
Table 1: Comparison of frame selection methods on Qwen2.5-VL-7B . Methods are categorized by type and grouped by frame count. Bold / underline denote the best/second-best performance.
Method
# Frames
Video-MME
LVB
MLVU
Short
Medium
Long
Overall
Needle-QA
Avg
Avg. Video Duration
1.3min
9min
41min
17min
12min
12min
Uniform Sampling Baseline
InternVL-3-8B
Uniform
8
68.7
58.3
48.8
58.6
53.4
77.2
64.4
Uniform
32
74.2
62.8
51.7
62.9
57.9
83.7
70.3
Table 2: Comparison of frame selection methods on InternVL-3-8B and LLaVA-OneVision-7B . Methods are categorized by type, grouped by model, and then by frame count. Bold / underline denote the best/second-best performance.
Method
# Frames
Video-MME
LVB
MLVU
Short
Medium
Long
Overall
Needle-QA
Avg
Avg. Video Duration
1.3min
9min
41min
17min
12min
12min
Qwen3-VL-8B
Uniform
8
64.8
51.8
47.7
54.7
53.3
60.4
56.9
Ours
8
67.8
56.2
50.8
58.3
58.2
79.8
66.7
Uniform
32
76.1
61.6
52.8
63.5
58.9
71.6
65.3
Table 3: Transferability analysis on state-of-the-art MLLMs ( Qwen3-VL-8B and InternVL-3.5-8B ). We compare the original model performance (Uniform) with our selector. Bold denotes the best performance.
Stage II Env.
Video-MME
LVB
MLVU
K=8
K=32
K=8
K=32
K=8
K=32
Evaluation: InternVL-3-8B
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
62.4
66.8
58.7
62.1
69.0
74.3
InternVL-3-8B
62.4
66.5
59.0
61.9
69.2
74.2
Table 4: Cross-environment Stage II training. Both selectors are evaluated on InternVL-3-8B with K=8 and K=32 . The selector trained with Qwen2.5-VL transfers directly to InternVL-3 without additional posterior training and achieves comparable performance to the selector trained with InternVL-3 itself. Bold denotes the best performance.
Method
Training Components
K = 8
K = 32
Stage I
Stage II
Reward
V-MME
LVB
MLVU
V-MME
LVB
MLVU
SigLIP2
✗
✗
-
54.7
56.6
61.9
61.1
59.7
66.3
Label Prior
✓
✗
-
58.5
57.4
65.2
63.6
60.4
68.2
+ Label Reward
✓
✓
label
58.3
57.6
64.9
63.8
60.2
67.6
+ Task Evidence (Ours)
✓
✓
NLL
61.5
58.7
66.1
65.2
61.1
70.3
Table 5: Ablation study on training strategies. All results are evaluated using the Qwen2.5-VL-7B model. We investigate the impact of the Label Prior (Stage I) and the Bayesian GRPO update (Stage II) across different frame budgets ( K=8,32 ). Reward Source indicates the reward signal used during GRPO.
Reward Type
Reward Properties
K=8
K=32
Granularity
Bias
V-MME
LVB
MLVU
V-MME
LVB
MLVU
Stage II reward signal
Label
Frame-level / medium
Annotation-biased
58.3
57.6
64.9
63.8
60.2
67.6
RLVR-style correctness
Sample-level / sparse
Task-level
57.3
56.5
65.3
62.1
58.9
66.7
NLL
Token-level / dense
Task-level
61.5
58.7
66.1
65.2
61.1
70.3
Table 6: Comparison of reward types for Stage II. Results are evaluated on Qwen2.5-VL-7B with K=8 and K=32 . Label reward provides medium-granularity but annotation-biased supervision. RLVR-style correctness reward is task-level but sparse. NLL provides dense task evidence and performs best across benchmarks. Bold denotes the best performance.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Hyperparameter
Stage I: Label Prior
Stage II: Task Evidence
Batch Size
32
1
Learning Rate
1e−4
5e−6
Optimizer
AdamW
AdamW
Weight Decay
0.01
0.01
Epochs
10
1
KL Coefficient ( β )
-
0.2
Appendix
Table 7: Hyperparameter settings for the two-stage training process.
Method
Encoder / Scorer
GFLOPs
Mem.
(GB)
Lightweight feature-based scoring
BOLT
SigLIP2-SO400M
240
0.80
F2C
SigLIP2-SO400M
241
0.80
Ours
SigLIP2-SO400M + selector
264
0.93
MLLM-based scoring
Appendix
Table 8: Selector-side efficiency comparison. GFLOPs and peak memory are measured on a 300-second video sampled at 1 FPS with K=32 . BOLT, F2C, and ours use the same SigLIP2-SO400M feature extractor.
Method
Latency (s/sample)
BOLT
1.29
Ours
1.38
Q-Frame
1.53
GenS
214.6
Appendix
Table 9: Average per-sample inference latency on Video-MME. Latency is measured on a single NVIDIA H100 GPU with K=32 and 1 FPS candidate sampling.
Method
Training Components
K = 8
K = 32
Stage I
Stage II
Reward
V-MME
LVB
MLVU
V-MME
LVB
MLVU
SigLIP2
✗
✗
-
55.4
56.7
61.0
62.1
59.8
69.2
Label Prior
✓
✗
-
57.3
58.1
64.3
63.9
61.4
71.0
+ Label Reward
✓
✓
Label
57.1
57.4
64.9
64.1
61.0
71.4
+ Task Evidence
✓
✓
NLL
58.3
58.2
66.7
65.3
62.7
72.7
Appendix
Table 10: Extended Ablation Study on Qwen3-VL-8B. Comparison of training strategies across different frame budgets ( K=8,32 ).
Method
Training Components
K = 8
K = 32
Stage I
Stage II
Reward
V-MME
LVB
MLVU
V-MME
LVB
MLVU
SigLIP2
✗
✗
-
56.7
58.1
64.8
60.9
60.6
69.7
Label Prior
✓
✗
-
57.6
58.9
66.2
62.4
62.3
70.7
+ Label Reward
✓
✓
Label
57.3
58.1
66.5
62.8
62.7
70.3
+ Task Evidence
✓
✓
NLL
58.3
59.6
67.6
64.1
63.4
71.4
Appendix
Table 11: Extended Ablation Study on InternVL-3.5-8B. Comparison of training strategies across different frame budgets ( K=8,32 ).
Metric
K=8
K=16
K=32
K=64
K=128
Video-MME
61.5
63.7
65.2
66.2
66.9
LVB
58.2
59.8
61.1
62.4
63.3
MLVU (Avg)
66.1
68.7
70.3
73.3
73.4
Appendix
Table 12: Performance with varying frame budgets ( K ) on Video-MME, LongVideoBench, and MLVU. All results are evaluated using Qwen2.5-VL .
Figure 14
Figure 4: Qualitative Examples 1 of Frame Selection. From top to bottom, we visualize the frames selected by our method compared to the baseline.
Figure 5: Qualitative Examples 2 and 3 of Frame Selection. From top to bottom, we visualize the frames selected by our method compared to the baseline.
Understanding long videos with multimodal large language models (MLLMs) requires selecting a compact set of frames from thousands of candidates, yet identifying the right frames seemingly requires understanding the video first. We resolve this circular dependency with a simple observation: cross-modal attention at validation-selected extraction layers in MLLMs already provides query-relevant frame evidence without requiring autoregressive generation. We exploit this property to build DAFS (Dynamic Attention-based Budget-aware Frame Selection), a training-free frame selector. A lightweight MLLM selector, even with only 2B parameters, can extract frame-level evidence by converting selected-layer attention into relevance scores through query-conditioned aggregation. This enables cross-frame comparison without autoregressive decoding. To handle the selector's own context constraint, we formulate the joint allocation of candidate pool size and per-frame token budget as a discrete optimization problem solved by dynamic programming. Under a 32-frame budget, our selector improves over uniform sampling by up to 6.4 points on Video-MME and outperforms prior training-based selectors under matched frame budgets, while generalizing across selector and answerer backbones, and across tasks, without retraining.
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) process multimodal inputs by converting text, images, and videos into token sequences that are subsequently processed by a backbone language model. While MLLMs have achieved excellent performance in understanding the content of individual images, video understanding remains significantly more difficult because videos contain large number of video frames. MLLMs typically process only a subset of these frames, usually ranging from 8 to 64. MLLMs usually sample frames uniformly, regardless of their relevance to the question being answered. To address this limitation, several training-free, model-agnostic methods for selecting question-relevant frames have recently been proposed. In this work, we introduce a frame-selection method designed specifically for multiple-choice questions. We extend the query text by appending semantic cues derived from the answer choices and employ a direct query-frame alignment scoring mechanism. To the best of our knowledge, our method is the first to directly utilize answer choices as inference-time cues for selecting frames relevant to answering a question. The method first constructs a compact candidate pool by subsampling video frames at a fixed rate. The frames are then scored according to their maximum cosine similarity across all question-answer pairs to identify the most relevant frames for a given query. This approach preserves a fixed token budget while improving the relevance of the visual evidence provided to the downstream MLLM. We evaluate the effectiveness of our frame-selection method on the MLVU, Video-MME, and LongVideoBench benchmarks using three MLLMs: LLaVA-Mini, Qwen2-VL, and LLaVA-Video. Experimental results demonstrate that answer-aware frame selection generally outperforms uniform sampling and existing training-free frame-selection methods under the same frame budget.
Md. Safayet Islam, Dilip Sarkar, Liang Liang
Department of Computer Science University of Miami Coral Gables, FL 33146
Recent advancements in MLLM-based long-form video understanding have mitigated inference-time computational cost and limited context lengths by selecting query-relevant frames. However, existing approaches predominantly rely on external proxy scorers and rigid heuristic rules, inevitably suffering from misalignment with the target MLLM's intrinsic evidence and failing to accommodate the non-uniform spatiotemporal information density. In this paper, we propose a fine-grained dynamic visual selection framework named EviSelect, grounded in the target MLLM internal attention evidence. Our method efficiently probes visual evidence via sparse prefilling as a structured prior to guide distribution-aware dynamic sampling. Specifically, we efficiently approximate attention maps of the target MLLM using highly compressed visual inputs and sparse attention, well-aligned to the full counterpart. Conditioned on three complementary attention components derived from this prior, we design a lightweight selector that not only precisely locates query-relevant timestamps but also adaptively adjusts the local sampling rate and spatial resolution. To enable evidence-conditioned spatiotemporal sampling, we formulate the selector as a stochastic policy and optimize it via GRPO under a joint accuracy--efficiency reward. By rewarding correct predictions under lower visual cost through group-relative comparisons, our method encourages the policy to allocate computation dynamically according to the information density of each video. Across three long video understanding benchmarks, EviSelect achieves superior performance compared to existing methods while reducing selected visual tokens by about 50% and achieving a 3.9x end-to-end speedup.
Bo Zhang, Wenxin Wang, Feng Chen +4
1Sichuan University · 2Adelaide University · 3Beijing Institute of Technology