End-to-End Video Question-Answer Generation with Generator-Pretester Network
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study a novel task, Video Question-Answer Generation (VQAG), for challenging Video Question Answering (Video QA) task in multimedia. Due to expensive data annotation costs, many widely used, large-scale Video QA datasets such as Video-QA, MSVD-QA and MSRVTT-QA are automatically annotated using Caption Question Generation (CapQG) which inputs captions instead of the video itself. As captions neither fully represent a video, nor are they always practically available, it is crucial to generate question-answer pairs based on a video via Video Question-Answer Generation (VQAG). Existing video-to-text (V2T) approaches, despite taking a video as the input, only generate a question alone. In this work, we propose a novel model Generator-Pretester Network that focuses on two components: (1) The Joint Question-Answer Generator (JQAG) which generates a question with its corresponding answer to allow Video Question "Answering" training. (2) The Pretester (PT) verifies a generated question by trying to answer it and checks the pretested answer with both the model's proposed answer and the ground truth answer. We evaluate our system with the only two available large-scale human-annotated Video QA datasets and achieves state-of-the-art question generation performances. Furthermore, using our generated QA pairs only on the Video QA task, we can surpass some supervised baselines. We apply our generated questions to Video QA applications and surpasses some supervised baselines using generated questions only. As a pre-training strategy, we outperform both CapQG and transfer learning approaches when employing semi-supervised (20%) or fully supervised learning with annotated data. These experimental results suggest the novel perspectives for Video QA training.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 it