DREAM: Improving Video-Text Retrieval Through Relevance-Based Augmentation Using Large Foundation Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent progress in video-text retrieval has been driven largely by advancements in model architectures and training strategies. However, the representation learning capabilities of video-text retrieval models remain constrained by low-quality and limited training data annotations. To address this issue, we present a novel Video-Text Retrieval Paradigm with Relevance-based Augmentation, namely dReAm, which enhances video and text data using large foundation models to learn more generalized features. Specifically, we first adopt a simple augmentation method, which generates self-similar data by randomly duplicating or dropping subwords and frames. In addition, inspired by the recent advancement in visual and language generative models, we propose a more robust augmentation method through textual paraphrasing and video stylization using large language models (LLMs) and visual generative models (VGMs). To further enrich video and text information, we propose a relevance-based augmentation method, where LLMs and VGMs generate and integrate new relevant information into the original data. Leveraging this enriched data, extensive experiments on several video-text retrieval benchmarks demonstrate the superiority of dReAm over existing methods. Code will be available upon acceptance.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".