Daily Papers

Text-to-video generation has surged in interest since Sora, yet open-source models still face a data bottleneck: there is no large, high-quality, easily obtainable video-text corpus. Existing public datasets typically require manual YouTube crawling, which yields low usable volume due to link rot and access limits, and raises licensing uncertainty. This work addresses this challenge by introducing ViMix-14M, a curated multi-source video-text dataset of around 14 million pairs that provides crawl-free, download-ready access and long-form, high-quality captions tightly aligned to video. ViMix-14M is built by merging diverse open video sources, followed by unified de-duplication and quality filtering, and a multi-granularity, ground-truth-guided re-captioning pipeline that refines descriptions to better match actions, scenes, and temporal structure. We evaluate the dataset by multimodal retrieval, text-to-video generation, and video question answering tasks, observing consistent improvements over counterpart datasets. We hope this work can help removing the key barrier to training and fine-tuning open-source video foundation models, and provide insights of building high-quality and generalizable video-text datasets.

With the massive surge in ML models on platforms like Hugging Face, users often lose track and struggle to choose the best model for their downstream tasks, frequently relying on model popularity indicated by download counts, likes, or recency. We investigate whether this popularity aligns with actual model performance and how the comprehensiveness of model documentation correlates with both popularity and performance. In our study, we evaluated a comprehensive set of 500 Sentiment Analysis models on Hugging Face. This evaluation involved massive annotation efforts, with human annotators completing nearly 80,000 annotations, alongside extensive model training and evaluation. Our findings reveal that model popularity does not necessarily correlate with performance. Additionally, we identify critical inconsistencies in model card reporting: approximately 80\% of the models analyzed lack detailed information about the model, training, and evaluation processes. Furthermore, about 88\% of model authors overstate their models' performance in the model cards. Based on our findings, we provide a checklist of guidelines for users to choose good models for downstream tasks.