LAVE: LLM-Powered Agent Assistance and Language Augmentation for Video Editing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Video creation has become increasingly popular, yet the expertise and effort required for editing often pose barriers to beginners. In this paper, we explore the integration of large language models (LLMs) into the video editing workflow to reduce these barriers. Our design vision is embodied in LAVE, a novel system that provides LLM-powered agent assistance and language-augmented editing features. LAVE automatically generates language descriptions for the user’s footage, serving as the foundation for enabling the LLM to process videos and assist in editing tasks. When the user provides editing objectives, the agent plans and executes relevant actions to fulfill them. Moreover, LAVE allows users to edit videos through either the agent or direct UI manipulation, providing flexibility and enabling manual refinement of agent actions. Our user study, which included eight participants ranging from novices to proficient editors, demonstrated LAVE’s effectiveness. The results also shed light on user perceptions of the proposed LLM-assisted editing paradigm and its impact on users’ creativity and sense of co-creation. Based on these findings, we propose design implications to inform the future development of agent-assisted content editing.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".