Matched via arXiv identifier search
- Stars
- 1
- Last push
- Jun 2, 2026 (18d ago)
Risk flags
- No CI pipeline detected
- No tagged releases
- No Docker setup
Dahye Kim, Bhuvan Sachdeva, Karan Uppal, Naman Gupta, Vineeth N. Balasubramanian, Deepti Ghadiyaram
Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
While most frames in long-form video are redundant, the critical information resides in temporal surprises: moments where the actual visual features deviate from their predicted evolution. Inspired by the human brain's predictive coding, we introduce Swift Sampling, an elegant, training-free frame selection algorithm that automatically identifies high-information moments in a video. Specifically, we model a video as ...
a differentiable trajectory in the visual latent space and compute the velocity and acceleration of its features. Then, we apply Taylor expansion to project the expected path of subsequent frames. Frames that diverge sharply from this predicted manifold are identified as temporally surprising frames and selected for sampling. Unlike prior training-free methods that rely on auxiliary networks or video-specific hyperparameter tuning, Swift Sampling is incredibly lightweight, adding only 0.02x additional computational cost over baseline making it 30x cheaper overhead than leading baselines. Across three long-video question answering benchmarks and 10 different downstream tasks, Swift Sampling outperforms uniform sampling and prior query-agnostic baselines. It is especially powerful for long videos with limited frame budgets improving accuracy by up to +12.5 points.
Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure section below.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Source | Evidence refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Computer vision | LVB | Accuracy | 55.3 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
While most frames in long-form video are redundant, the critical information resides in temporal surprises: moments where the actual visual features deviate from their predicted evolution.
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 95/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
Matched via arXiv identifier search
Risk flags
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
Hardware requirements
No verified implementation available
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Datasets
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tasks
Computer vision
Methods
None detected
Domains
Computer vision
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.