Papers › Towards Fast Adaptation of Pretrained Contrastive Models for Multi-channel...
Towards Fast Adaptation of Pretrained Contrastive Models for Multi-channel Video-Language Retrieval
Xudong Lin, Simran Tiwari, Shiyuan Huang, Manling Li, Mike Zheng Shou, Heng Ji, Shih-Fu Chang
Multi-channel video-language retrieval require models to understand information from different channels (e.g. video$+question, video+$speech) to correctly link a video with a textual response or query. Fortunately, contrastive multimodal models are shown to be highly effective at aligning entities in images/videos and text, e.g., CLIP; text contrastive models are extensively studied recently for their strong ability of producing discriminative sentence embeddings, e.g., SimCSE. However, there is not a clear way to quickly adapt these two lines to multi-channel video-language retrieval with limited data and resources. In this paper, we identify a principled model design space with two axes: how to represent videos and how to fuse video and text information. Based on categorization of recent methods, we investigate the options of representing videos using continuous feature vectors or discrete text tokens; for the fusion method, we explore the use of a multimodal transformer or a pretrained contrastive text model. We extensively evaluate the four combinations on five video-language datasets. We surprisingly find that discrete text tokens coupled with a pretrained contrastive text model yields the best performance, which can even outperform state-of-the-art on the iVQA and How2QA datasets without additional training on millions of video-text data. Further analysis shows that this is because representing videos as text tokens captures the key visual information and text tokens are naturally aligned with text models that are strong retrievers after the contrastive pretraining process. All the empirical analysis establishes a solid foundation for future research on affordable and upgradable multimodal intelligence.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2206.02082")
Code
Syntology Ran 1 of 1 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · violated contract.
By repository: official repository: 1 sample from 1 repository, 1 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
1 sample harvested; 1 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 1 sample are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from xudonglinthu/upgradable-multimodal-intelligence. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
7758b86def53a87e · report
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
| Task | Dataset | Model | Metric | Value | Rank at snapshot | Leaderboard | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Video Question Answering | ActivityNet-QA | Text + Text (no Multimodal Pretext Training) | Accuracy | 41.4 | #23 of 36 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Video Question Answering | How2QA | Text + Text (no Multimodal Pretext Training) | Accuracy | 93.2 | #1 of 8 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Video Question Answering | iVQA | Text + Text (no Multimodal Pretext Training) | Accuracy | 40.2 | #1 of 7 | Archive leaderboard | report |
Ranks are positions in the archive's leaderboards as they stood at the 2025-07-28 snapshot. Results published since then are not among these rows, so a rank here is not a current standing.
Methods
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections