DUQ: Dual Uncertainty Quantification for Text-Video Retrieval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Text-video retrieval establishes accurate similarity relationships between text and video through feature enhancement and granularity alignment. However, relying solely on similarity to associate intra-pair features and distinguish inter-pair features is insufficient, \textit{e.g.}, when querying a multi-scene video with sparse text or selecting the most relevant video from many similar candidates. In this paper, we propose a novel Dual Uncertainty Quantification (DUQ) model that separately handles uncertainties in intra-pair interaction and inter-pair exclusion. Specifically, to enhance intra-pair interaction, we propose an intra-pair similarity uncertainty module to provide similarity-based trustworthy predictions and explicitly model this uncertainty. To increase inter-pair exclusion, we propose an inter-pair distance uncertainty module to construct a distance-based diversity probability embeding, thereby widening the gap between similar features. The two components work synergistically, jointly improving the calculation of similarity between features. We evaluate our model on six benchmark datasets: MSRVTT (51.2%), DiDeMo, MSVD, LSMDC, Charades, and VATEX, achieving state-of-the-art retrieval performance.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".