Writing study: PAS: A Training-Free Stabilizer for Temporal Encoding in Video LLMs
← CVPR 2026 oral writing corpus
Bowen Sun, Yujun Cai, Ming-Hsuan Yang, Hang Wu, Yiwei Wang · Official CVPR 2026 oral record
Figure, table and section ledger
Editorial contribution type: Theory & formal analysis (primary).
Layout extraction, not a required paper template. Counts are distinct caption labels; a multi-panel figure counts once. Section spans are estimated from heading positions, including floats and whitespace. Method and limitations.
- Canonical PDF
- 10 physical pages
- Before references / appendix
- ≈ 8.15 page-equivalents
- Main figures / tables
- 5 / 2
- Attached appendix figures / tables
- 0 / 0
- Attached appendix span
- Separate file recorded below; not in this PDF total
Extraction notes: No attached appendix boundary detected. Zero means no recognized caption, not independently verified absence.
Section-by-section lengths and source pages
The title/abstract/front matter precede the first numbered heading. A span ends at the next detected top-level heading, not at the last sentence; end-page whitespace is included. References and statements are listed separately. These are not measurements of text-only or artwork area.
| Top-level heading | Starts on PDF page | Estimated span | Share of entire PDF |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Introduction | 1 | ≈ 1.54 pp. | 15.4% |
| 2. We introduce Phase Aggregated Smoothing (PAS), a | 2 | ≈ 0.14 pp. | 1.4% |
| 3. We provide theory informed scope and empirically val- | 3 | ≈ 3.75 pp. | 37.5% |
| 4. Experiment | 6 | ≈ 1.99 pp. | 19.9% |
| 5. Conclusion | 8 | ≈ 0.27 pp. | 2.7% |
| Acknowledgements | 9 | ≈ 0.1 pp. | 1% |
| References | 9 | ≈ 1.85 pp. | 18.5% |
All detected figure and table locations
Main text
Attached appendix
No recognized caption labels.
Separate source files—excluded from canonical-PDF totals
A separate author version may repeat main text and references. Whole-file lengths and counts are not extra appendix material and are never added to the canonical PDF totals. Read the study's source scope for which sections received substantive reading versus layout inspection.
Additional source 1
Separate PDF (or ZIP containing it): whole-file layout of 3 physical pages; 0 detected figures and 0 tables. These may include overlapping main-text material.
Located appendix only: starts on physical p.1; ≈ 2.94 page-equivalents, 0 figure labels and 0 table labels. This interval is distinct from the whole file.
| Detected heading | PDF page | Estimated span |
|---|---|---|
| Supplementary Material | 1 | ≈ 2.94 pp. |
Argument and organization
- Temporal failure to formal diagnosis
Illustrate frame-timing instability, then formulate temporal frequency modulation and phase offsets.
- Theory to single-pass implementation
State scope conditions, give query-head pseudocode, and evaluate matched-token settings and sampling rates.
Problem, claim and contribution
The paper narrows temporal inconsistency to the modulation induced by multimodal RoPE, using a concrete low-gain key-frame failure rather than a generic temporal reasoning claim.
Figure 1 and Introduction, PDF p. 1 · Main paper · Additional source 2
Argument and section order
The method distinguishes the temporal kernel, theory and implementation, allowing the reader to locate assumptions before the one-pass intervention.
Section 3, PDF pp. 3–6 · Main paper · Additional source 2
Figures, captions and visual explanation
Algorithm 1 states that only video tokens and query-head temporal dimensions are modified; the adjacent implementation figure visualizes the same restricted operation.
Algorithm 1 and Figure 3, PDF p. 6; visual inspection · Main paper · Additional source 2
Tables, comparisons and evidence
The benchmark table labels whether sampling satisfies the Nyquist condition, while main comparisons hold token budgets matched and separately show stacked methods.
Tables 1–2, PDF p. 7 · Main paper · Additional source 2
Appendix and reproducibility
The supplement is a compact mathematical extension focused on approximation conditions and proof, rather than an unrelated gallery of extra results.
Supplement, PDF pp. 1–3 · Main paper · Additional source 2
Clarity and writing conventions
Theorem statements expose band-limited/window conditions rather than hiding them behind an unconditional invariance slogan.
Theorem 4, PDF p. 5 · Main paper · Additional source 2
What to reuse—and what not to infer
Transferable lesson: For a theory-informed plug-in, present the failure, assumptions, exact modification and matched-budget empirical scope as separate parts of the argument.
Boundary: Per-head spectral preservation and smoothing after head aggregation are different statements; the formal sampling conditions should accompany any invariance claim. Proofs were scanned for writing organization, not independently certified.
Apply this lesson using the argument and evidence worksheet.
Inspection record and sources
- Checked
- 2026-09-26
- Reading status
- Writing-focused manuscript scan + selected visuals inspected
- Main text
- Manuscript-wide writing scan of PDF pp. 1–10: framing, argument sequence, section organization, figure/table captions, evaluation interpretation and limitations; reference sections identified. This is a writing-focused scan, not an exhaustive technical proof or reproduction audit. Main PDF pages 3 and 6 were rendered and visually inspected.
- Appendix / supplement
- Writing-focused scan of the separate supplementary PDF, pp. 1–3, including its organization, captions, protocol/evidence detail and limitation material where present; proofs and code listings were inspected for exposition, not independently verified or executed. Supplement, PDF pp. 1–3. Linked video/audio demonstrations and non-PDF archive contents were not assessed.
- Visually inspected PDF pages
- 3, 6
This is a writing-focused scan of the manuscript and the stated supplementary scope: framing, organization, visual explanation, evidence presentation and wording. It is not a line-by-line proof audit, reproduction of results or exhaustive scientific review.