FV-Action, the training-free method built on this analysis, is the strongest training-free result on this benchmark; it surpasses every TVG-trained model evaluated zero-shot on TACoS, and improves over direct prediction on ActivityNet Captions and QVHighlights, with no temporal supervision at any stage.
Abstract
Multimodal LLMs that recognise events reliably still fail to say when they happen. Prompted for timestamps, strong VLMs reach as little as $3.8\%$ R@0.5 on Charades-STA, and $77$ to $80\%$ of their wrong predictions carry low output entropy: the models are confidently wrong, and entropy-based error detection stays below a random classifier. We show that this failure lives in the task interface, not in perception. Holding the weights fixed, replacing timestamp regression with a coarse-to-fine scan of binary questions, whose first-token probabilities are consumed only as a ranking, raises R@0.5 by $28$ to $50$ points across four frozen backbones. The residual failures decompose into two measurable axes: a perception axis that moves with the backbone, and a geometry axis that is analytically predictable from the ratio of the output-window and event widths. FV-Action, the training-free method built on this analysis, reaches $56.8\%$ R@0.5 on Charades-STA, above the same backbone's native grounding pipeline and the strongest training-free result on this benchmark; it surpasses every TVG-trained model evaluated zero-shot on TACoS, and improves over direct prediction on ActivityNet Captions and QVHighlights, with no temporal supervision at any stage.
This work shows the attention layer itself can close that gap between deep models for irregularly-sampled time series answer queries at arbitrary continuous timestamps: with the right stochastic formulation, the pass that makes each prediction also reports how far it should be trusted.
It is proposed that a model's uncertainty about a token is reflected not only in the breadth of its output distribution but also in whether a confident prediction is \emph{fragile} under perturbation of its attention pathways, a training-free estimator that masks attention heads and measures the BALD mutual information...
Minsoo Kim, Sungyoung Ji, Kisung Moon et al.· 0 citations
The Complementary Evidence Guard (CEG), a detector-agnostic wrapper that preserves complementary evidence through a non-compensatory fusion of the base detector, level, and sharpness using only empirical in-distribution percentiles is introduced.
I. M. De La Jara, Cristian Rodriguez-Opazo, Stephen Gould et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
It is suggested that reasoning validity is better read from state-conditioned motion than from either static states or decontextualized trajectories alone, andlations show that motion, region, and direction provide complementary signals.
Hamed Damirchi, I. M. De La Jara, D. Ranasinghe et al.· 0 citations
This work confirms the signal is causally used, not merely present, by editing $h_t$ directly and watching behaviour change, including a check using real values from other trajectories instead of synthetic edits.
UCCT is framed as a Concept & Feasibility contribution offering a falsifiable pre dictive framework for when in-context control tips, with broader validation across multitask geom etry, RAG and adaptation interventions, and mechanistic localization left to follow-up studies.
Unknown authors· System-2 Reasoning: From Sem...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.