Evaluates the effectiveness of a training-free token compression method for video large language models across various video understanding tasks, including QA, long-video understanding, and multi-choice benchmarks, under different token retention ratios. Use when the user wants to benchmark on ActivityNet-QA, Video-ChatGPT, Next-QA, Egoschema, MLVU, Video-MME, VideoMMMU, MVBench, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Avg.(%).
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill llava-scissor-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Llava Scissor Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-llava-scissor-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: llava-scissor-eval
description: Evaluates the effectiveness of a training-free token compression method for video large language models across various video understanding tasks, including QA, long-video understanding, and multi-choice benchmarks, under different token retention ratios. Use when the user wants to benchmark on ActivityNet-QA, Video-ChatGPT, Next-QA, Egoschema, MLVU, Video-MME, VideoMMMU, MVBench, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Avg.(%).
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2506.21862
bibtex_key: sun2025llavascissor
confidence: high
---
# llava-scissor-eval
> LLaVA-Scissor: Token Compression with Semantic Connected Components for Video LLMs — Sun et al. (2025) (arXiv:2506.21862, 2025)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates the effectiveness of a training-free token compression method for video large language models across various video understanding tasks, including QA, long-video understanding, and multi-choice benchmarks, under different token retention ratios.
## Datasets
- **ActivityNet-QA** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **Video-ChatGPT** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **Next-QA** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **Egoschema** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **MLVU** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **Video-MME** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **VideoMMMU** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **MVBench** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `Avg.(%)` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Percentage of correct answers on each benchmark. The headline metric is the average accuracy across all evaluated benchmarks.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Video frames processed by a vision encoder (SIGLIP) and a text question/prompt.
**Output**: Text answer generated by the LLM (Qwen 2.5).
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_avg_accuracy(predictions, gold_answers):
correct = sum(1 for pred, gold in zip(predictions, gold_answers) if pred == gold)
return (correct / len(gold_answers)) * 100
```
## Common pitfalls
- Token retention ratio is controlled by a similarity threshold $\tau$, so the exact number of retained tokens varies across datasets with different video distributions.
- Comparisons are only fair when using the same modified base model (LLaVA-OneVision with SIGLIP and Qwen 2.5), not the original LLaVA-OneVision.
- FLOPs are calculated only for the LLM stage (prefilling and decoding), excluding vision encoder and compression overhead.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> | Method | Retention ratio | EgoSchema | MLVU | VideoMME | VideoMMMU | Avg.(%) |
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{sun2025llavascissor,
title={LLaVA-Scissor: Token Compression with Semantic Connected Components for Video LLMs},
author={Sun et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2506.21862}
}
```
- arXiv: 2506.21862

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!