Reinforcement Learning for Unsupervised Video Summarization With Reward Generator Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a novel approach for unsupervised video summarization using reinforcement learning (RL), addressing limitations like unstable adversarial training and reliance on heuristic-based reward functions. The method operates on the principle that reconstruction fidelity serves as a proxy for informativeness, correlating summary quality with reconstruction ability. The summarizer model assigns importance scores to frames to generate the final summary. For training, RL is coupled with a unique reward generation pipeline that incentivizes improved reconstructions. This pipeline uses a generator model to reconstruct the full video from the selected summary frames; the similarity between the original and reconstructed video provides the reward signal. The generator itself is pre-trained self-supervisedly to reconstruct randomly masked frames. This two-stage training process enhances stability compared to adversarial architectures. Experimental results show strong alignment with human judgments and promising F-scores, validating the reconstruction objective. The code for this project will be available online<sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup>.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".