Source-linked AI summary
Multi-Scale Latent Temporal Compression Attention and Video-Text Cross Attention Fusion for Video Action Detection
Yicheng Qiu, Keiji Yanai
TL;DR
Video action detection must capture temporal dynamics while managing redundant frames and limited video-text interaction. The paper combines multi-scale latent temporal compression attention with standard- and latent-level video-text cross-attention; experiments across four benchmarks support the modules' effectiveness.
Problem
Video action detection methods face redundant frame information, difficulty balancing global and local features, and limited video-text fusion.
Source: §1 · pp. 1–2Method
The framework combines multi-scale latent temporal compression attention with video-text cross-attention at standard and latent feature levels.
Source: §1 · p. 3Results
Experiments on four benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed modules.
Source: §1 · p. 3Takeaways & Limitations
The framework is applicable to various video action detection tasks.
Source: §1 · p. 3
Abstract
from arXiv · showhide
In video action detection, modeling the temporal dependencies in continuous video streams is crucial. Previous methods based on deep neural networks can perform frame-level video recognition tasks. However, these methods struggle to model dynamic temporal patterns, facing challenges such as redundant frame information, difficulty balancing global and local features, and insufficient fusion of visual and textual features. To address these issues, we propose a video temporal attention module based on the Multi-Scale Latent Temporal Compression Attention, which aggregates continuous temporal sequences into feature representations across diverse temporal scales while efficiently reducing redundancy. We also introduce a Video-Text Cross Attention Fusion module that leverages cross-attention at both latent and standard feature levels, achieving fine-grained fusion between video and textual features to enhance semantic alignment and feature interaction. Experimental results across multiple video recognition benchmarks demonstrate that our proposed methods achieve superior performance compared to existing methods, validating the effectiveness and generalization capability.
1 Introduction
The paper targets redundant temporal processing and shallow video-text interaction in video action detection. It introduces multi-scale latent temporal compression and two-level video-text fusion, reporting validation across four benchmarks.
1 Introduction
- Video action detection must recognize and temporally localize predefined actions and abnormal events in long, untrimmed streams.The introduction notes applications including surveillance, autonomous driving, behavior analysis, and embodied intelligence.Source: §1 · p. 1
- MLTC-Attention compresses temporal features at multiple latent-space scales before attention to balance global context and local detail while reducing redundancy.A gate re-weights scales according to input content.Source: §1 · pp. 2–3
- VTCA-Fusion aligns video and category-text features through cross-attention at standard and latent levels for fine-grained alignment and complementary integration.The standard feature space captures explicit semantic correspondences, while the latent branch captures compressed cross-modal patterns.Source: §1 · pp. 2–3
- Experiments on four benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed modules.The framework is described as applicable to various video action detection tasks.Source: §1 · p. 3
2 Related Work
Related work surveys video representation and multimodal models, temporal action detection approaches, and methods for video anomaly detection.
2.1 Video Understanding Models
- Video representations progress from 3D CNNs through Transformers and self-supervised models to state-space approaches; multimodal work aligns vision with language and connects video encoders to large language models.The section also mentions CLIP-based video action recognition.Source: §2.1 · p. 3
2.2 Video Action Detection Models
- Temporal action detection spans boundary-matching and graph-based methods, multi-scale feature pyramids and pooling, and Transformer- and state-space-based temporal modeling.Recent work also explores cross-layer decoupling and boundary refinement.Source: §2.2 · p. 3
2.3 Video Anomaly Detection Models
- Video anomaly detection work includes MIL-based learning, graph and memory methods, CLIP transfer, text-prompt guidance, and modeling anomalies across temporal scales.The framework overview depicts VTCA-Fusion and MLTC-Attention processing temporal and categorical features for downstream tasks.Source: §2.3 · p. 3, Figure 2 · p. 4
3 Method
The method first fuses video and category-text features at standard and latent levels, then applies multi-scale temporal attention to produce temporal and class scores. Task-specific losses train the resulting predictions for video anomaly detection and temporal action detection.
3.1 Overview
- Video features and encoded category-text prompts are fused into a temporal sequence and similarity map, which feed MLTC-Attention and produce temporal and class scores.The video encoder extracts frame features, while enhanced category prompts are encoded and projected into the video feature space.Source: §3.1 · p. 4
3.2 Video-Text Cross Attention Fusion Module
- VTCA-Fusion uses video frames as queries and enhanced text features as keys and values, combining standard-level semantic detail with compressed latent-level interaction.The two attention outputs are concatenated, projected, and added to the video features to form the fused temporal sequence.Source: §3.2 · p. 5
3.3 Multi-Scale Latent Temporal Compression Attention Block
- MLTC-Attention compresses latent keys and values at multiple temporal scales, attends to compressed and top-k critical segments, then gates these outputs with global self-attention.Compression reduces each branch’s cost from O(τ^2) to O(τ^2/σi), while the global branch retains the full receptive field.Source: §3.3 · pp. 5–7
Loss of Video Anomaly Detection.
- For video anomaly detection, video-level labels are broadcast across frames, while the loss combines binary anomaly classification, top-k low-scoring abnormal-video frames treated as normal, and category classification.The additional normal-instance loss addresses noise from abnormal videos containing normal frames.Source: Loss of Video Anomaly Detection · p. 7
Loss of Temporal Action Detection.
- For temporal action detection, training combines Focal Loss for action classification with Distance-IoU for temporal segment regression, weighted by λ, and inference applies Soft Non-Maximum Suppression.The classification and regression labels correspond to action categories and temporal segments, respectively.Source: Loss of Temporal Action Detection · pp. 7–8
4 Experiments
Experiments evaluate the method on video anomaly detection and temporal action detection benchmarks, using task-specific metrics. The reported results cover benchmark comparisons, computational efficiency, qualitative predictions, and component ablations.
4.1 Datasets and Evaluation Metrics
- On UCF-Crime and XD-Violence, frame-level AUC and AP are reported; THUMOS14 and ActivityNet mAP is averaged over multiple tIoU thresholds.The evaluation uses UCF-Crime and XD-Violence for anomaly detection, and THUMOS14 and ActivityNet for temporal action detection.Source: §4.1 · p. 8
4.2 Implementation Details
- The model uses frozen pretrained video and text encoders, trains projection layers, prompts, both proposed modules and the task head, and runs for 20 epochs.Training uses AdamW, a learning rate of 1e-5, batch size 64, and 512-frame video inputs on one NVIDIA L40S GPU.Source: §4.2 · p. 8
4.3 Evaluation and Comparison
- The method achieves the highest reported AUC on UCF-Crime and AP on XD-Violence without audio, and leads across tIoU thresholds on THUMOS14 and ActivityNet-1.3.It also has the highest throughput with the fewest FLOPs among compared methods while being the most accurate.Source: §4.3 · pp. 8–10, Table 1 · p. 9, Table 2 · p. 9
4.4 Qualitative Analyses
- Qualitative predictions are more precise than the baseline on both tasks, while category-wise attention activates on anomaly intervals and favors “Normal” for normal videos.The visualizations show anomaly scores against ground-truth intervals and predicted action categories over temporal segments.Source: §4.4 · pp. 10–11, Figure 3 · p. 10, Figure 4 · p. 10
4.5 Ablation Studies
- Ablations show that replacing MLTC-Attention with standard attention, or removing VTCA-Fusion or latent components, lowers performance; compression scales balance fine detail and redundancy reduction.Learnable prompts achieve the best results; removing text or using random, generic, or class-only prompts performs worse.Source: §4.5 · pp. 11–12
5 Conclusion
The paper combines MLTC-Attention and VTCA-Fusion to address temporal modeling and multimodal fusion in video action detection. Experiments on temporal action detection and video anomaly detection benchmarks show improved accuracy and superior overall performance.
- The methods consistently improve accuracy and achieve superior overall performance on temporal action detection and video anomaly detection benchmarks.Source: §5 · p. 12
- MLTC-Attention uses multi-scale temporal latent-space compression to capture dynamic features while reducing computational redundancy and inefficiency.Source: §5 · p. 12
- VTCA-Fusion applies cross-attention between video content and enhanced multi-category text for precise alignment and complementary integration of visual and textual features.Source: §5 · p. 12