Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Seeing Fast and Slow: Learning the Flow of Time in Videos

Yen-Siang Wu, Rundong Luo, Jingsen Zhu, Tao Tu, Ali Farhadi, Matthew Wallingford, Yu-Chiang Frank Wang, Steve Marschner, Wei-Chiu Ma · Apr 23, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

How can we tell whether a video has been sped up or slowed down? How can we generate videos at different speeds? Although videos have been central to modern computer vision research, little attention has been paid to perceiving and controlling the passage of time. In this paper, we study time as a learnable visual concept and develop models for reasoning about and manipulating the flow of time in videos. We first exploit the multimodal cues and temporal structure naturally present in videos to learn, in a self-supervised manner, to detect speed changes and estimate playback speed. We then show that these learned temporal reasoning models enable us to curate the largest slow-motion video dataset to date from noisy in-the-wild sources. Such slow-motion footage, typically filmed by high-speed cameras, contains substantially richer temporal detail than standard videos. Using this data, we further develop models capable of temporal control, including speed-conditioned video generation, which produces motion at specified playback speed, and temporal super-resolution, which tranforms low-FPS, blurry videos into high-FPS sequences with fine-grained temporal details. Our findings highlight time as a manipulable, perceptual dimension in video learning, opening doors to temporally controllable video generation, temporal forensics detection, and potentially richer world-models that understand how events unfold over time.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
  • The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
  • The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"How can we tell whether a video has been sped up or slowed down?"

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"How can we tell whether a video has been sped up or slowed down?"

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"How can we tell whether a video has been sped up or slowed down?"

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"How can we tell whether a video has been sped up or slowed down?"

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"How can we tell whether a video has been sped up or slowed down?"

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

How can we tell whether a video has been sped up or slowed down?

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • How can we tell whether a video has been sped up or slowed down?
  • How can we generate videos at different speeds?
  • Although videos have been central to modern computer vision research, little attention has been paid to perceiving and controlling the passage of time.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • How can we tell whether a video has been sped up or slowed down?
  • How can we generate videos at different speeds?
  • Although videos have been central to modern computer vision research, little attention has been paid to perceiving and controlling the passage of time.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.