SuperClip Pyramid for Video Temporal Grounding
Organizations: KAIST · TwelveLabs · KT · Korea Univertsity
Abstract
With the rapid expansion of online video content, video temporal grounding has become essential for localizing moments based on user-specific queries, comprising two subtasks: moment retrieval (MR) and highlight detection (HD). While recent approaches adopt DETR-style decoders or temporal pyramid architectures, they rely on single-scale feature maps or uniformly downsampled representations, limiting their ability to capture semantic boundaries and variable-length events. In this paper, we present SuperClip Video Temporal Grounding (SCVTG) built on a multi-scale temporal hierarchy that better captures distinctive events at various granularities. SCVTG constructs a SuperClip pyramid by grouping adjacent clips into semantically coherent segments, termed SuperClips. Further, to aggregate these SuperClips having variable duration and temporal location, we introduce a temporally adaptive kernel that aggregates SuperClips through temporally conditioned weights, enabling flexible aggregation. On top of this, we design relative saliency losses to guide the model in learning inter-clip importance, enhancing its ability to distinguish relevant events. Extensive experiments show that SCVTG achieves the best performance across five video temporal grounding benchmarks with promising gains.
Figures & tables
| Method | MR Val | HD Val | MR Test | HD Test | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | mAP | Hit | mAP | R1 | mAP | Hit | mAP | |||||||
| @0.5 | @0.7 | @0.5 | @0.75 | Avg | @1 | Avg | @0.5 | @0.7 | @0.5 | @0.75 | Avg | @1 | Avg | |
| MomentDETR [ 18 ] | 53.94 | 34.84 | - | - | 32.20 | 55.55 | 35.65 | 52.89 | 33.02 | 54.82 | 29.40 | 30.73 | 55.60 | 35.69 |
| UniVTG [ 20 ] | 59.74 | - | - | - | 36.13 | 61.81 | 38.83 | 58.86 | 40.86 | 57.60 | 35.59 | 35.47 | 60.96 | 38.20 |
| UMT [ 30 ] | 60.26 | 44.26 | 56.70 | 39.90 | 38.59 | 64.19 | 39.85 | 56.23 | 41.18 | 53.83 | 37.01 | 36.12 | 59.99 | 38.18 |
| MomentDiff [ 19 ] | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 58.21 | 41.48 | 54.57 | 37.21 | 36.84 | – | – |
| Method | TVSum [ 43 ] | YouTube-HL [ 45 ] | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VT | VU | GA | MS | PK | PR | FM | BK | BT | DS | Avg. | Dog | Gym. | Par. | Ska. | Ski. | Sur. | Avg. | |
| LIM-S [ 53 ] | 55.9 | 42.9 | 61.2 | 54.0 | 60.4 | 47.5 | 43.2 | 66.3 | 69.1 | 62.6 | 56.3 | 57.9 | 41.7 | 67.0 | 57.8 | 48.6 | 65.1 | 56.4 |
| SL-Module [ 55 ] | 86.5 | 68.7 | 74.9 | 86.2 | 79.0 | 63.2 | 58.9 | 72.6 | 78.9 | 64.0 | 73.3 | 70.8 | 53.2 | 77.2 | 72.5 | 66.1 | 76.2 | 69.3 |
| Joint-VA [ 2 ] | 83.7 | 57.3 | 78.5 | 86.1 | 80.1 | 69.2 | 70.0 | 73.0 | 97.4 | 67.5 | 76.3 | 64.5 | 71.9 | 80.8 | 62.0 | 73.2 | 78.3 | 71.8 |
| UniVTG [ 20 ] | 83.9 | 85.1 | 89.0 | 80.1 | 84.6 | 81.4 | 70.9 | 91.7 | 73.5 | 69.3 | 81.0 | 71.8 | 76.5 | 73.9 | 73.3 | 73.2 | 82.2 | 75.2 |
| UMT [ 30 ] | 87.5 | 81.5 | 88.2 | 78.8 | 81.4 | 87.0 | 76.0 | 86.9 | 84.4 | 79.6 | 83.1 | 65.9 | 75.2 | 81.6 | 71.8 | 72.3 | 82.7 | 74.9 |
| Method | MR | HD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [email protected] | mAP | Hit@1 | mAP | |
| (a) Grouping method | ||||
| Pairwise | 58.58 | 53.83 | 74.00 | 44.71 |
| Similarity | 52.00 | 46.43 | 72.26 | 44.25 |
| SuperClip | 59.23 | 54.50 | 74.32 | 45.33 |
| (b) Temporally adaptive kernel | ||||
| Method | MR | HD | Latency | Memory | ||
| [email protected] | mAP | Hit@1 | mAP | ms | M | |
| (g) Low-rank approximation for weight basis | ||||||
| Original | 59.87 | 54.07 | 74.65 | 45.04 | 0.188 | 8222 |
| Low-rank | 59.23 | 54.50 | 74.32 | 45.33 | 0.112 | 3978 |
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Method | Short | Middle | Long | All |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UMT [ 30 ] | 5.02 | 42.22 | 42.84 | 38.59 |
| UniVTG [ 20 ] | 8.64 | 39.90 | 37.82 | 36.13 |
| CG-DETR [ 32 ] | 10.58 | 48.30 | 49.36 | 44.93 |
| LLMEPET [ 15 ] | 10.58 | 48.30 | 49.36 | 44.93 |
| -Tuning [ 29 ] | 12.62 | 48.56 | 55.42 | 47.86 |
| FlashVTG [ 3 ] | 15.65 | 56.54 | 56.19 | 52.84 |
| # | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 32 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mAP | 54.14 | 54.50 | 54.48 | 54.57 | 54.24 |
| Method | SLIC [ 1 ] | SEEDS [ 47 ] | SuperClip |
|---|---|---|---|
| Latency(ms) | 0.355 | 3.069 | 0.112 |
Temporal Video Grounding
Temporal video grounding locates the moments in a video that match a natural-language query, enabling precise search and evidence-based understanding.
See all 166 papersTimePLE: Rethinking Temporal Representation for Video Temporal Grounding
Summarize Before Grounding: Query-Guided Chunk Condensation for Long-Video Temporal Grounding
summarize before grounding'' framework (named SumGround'') for long-video temporal grounding. The key of SumGround is to perform query-guided chunk condensation to aggregate and retrieve query-relevant evidence. Specifically, we split the video into several chunks and perform two-level chunk condensation. First, we introduce query-guided latent summaries, which is represented as KV states of query-guided prompts, to compress redundant visual tokens into compact query-relevant chunk summaries. Furthermore, we design an associative summary retrieval scheme to rank and select chunk summaries that are most likely to contain the event interval. Both query-guided latent summary and associative summary retrieval schemes are enabled by RLVR. To reduce memory consumption, we propose a length-aware gradient gating module to selectively stop gradient back-propagated to visual tokens. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SumGround performs favorably against previous state-of-the-art methods across multiple downstream datasets, with remarkable gains on long videos.