Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the problem of video summarization. Given an input raw video, the goal is to select a small subset of key frames from the input video to create a shorter summary video that best describes the content of the original video. Most of the current state-of-the-art video summarization approaches use supervised learning and require labeled training data. Each training instance consists of a raw input video and its ground truth summary video curated by human annotators. However, it is very expensive and difficult to create such labeled training examples. To address this limitation, we propose a novel formulation to learn video summarization from unpaired data. We present an approach that learns to generate optimal video summaries using a set of raw videos (V) and a set of summary videos (S), where there exists no correspondence between V and S. We argue that this type of data is much easier to collect. Our model aims to learn a mapping function F : V -> S such that the distribution of resultant summary videos from F(V) is similar to the distribution of S with the help of an adversarial objective. In addition, we enforce a diversity constraint on F(V) to ensure that the generated video summaries are visually diverse. Experimental results on two benchmark datasets indicate that our proposed approach significantly outperforms other alternative methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".