This benchmark evaluates a model's ability to generate concise, structured summaries of scientific conference talks from video inputs. It specifically probes informativeness, alignment with visual/audio content, and factual consistency against the corresponding paper abstracts. Use when the user wants to benchmark on VISTA, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports ROUGE-1 F1.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill vista-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Vista Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-vista-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: vista-eval
description: This benchmark evaluates a model's ability to generate concise, structured summaries of scientific conference talks from video inputs. It specifically probes informativeness, alignment with visual/audio content, and factual consistency against the corresponding paper abstracts. Use when the user wants to benchmark on VISTA, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports ROUGE-1 F1.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2502.08279
bibtex_key: liu2025vista
confidence: high
---
# vista-eval
> What Is That Talk About? A Video-to-Text Summarization Dataset for Scientific Presentations — Liu et al. (2025) (arXiv:2502.08279, 2025)
## What this evaluates
This benchmark evaluates a model's ability to generate concise, structured summaries of scientific conference talks from video inputs. It specifically probes informativeness, alignment with visual/audio content, and factual consistency against the corresponding paper abstracts.
## Datasets
- **VISTA** — total 18599; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `ROUGE-1 F1` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- F1 score of unigram overlap between the generated summary and the reference abstract.
- `ROUGE-2 F1` — range: [0, 1]
- F1 score of bigram overlap between the generated summary and the reference abstract.
- `ROUGE-LSum F1` — range: [0, 1]
- Summary-level ROUGE F1 score that treats each paragraph as a separate document.
- `SacreBLEU` — range: [0, 100]
- BLEU score computed with standardized tokenization and a fixed reference corpus.
- `METEOR` — range: [0, 1]
- Alignment-based metric incorporating synonymy, stemming, and word order penalties.
- `BERTScore` — range: [0, 1]
- Cosine similarity between contextual embeddings of generated and reference tokens, aggregated via F1.
- `CIDEr-D` — range: [0, 1]
- TF-IDF weighted n-gram similarity score designed for image and video captioning evaluation.
- `VideoScore` — range: [0, 1]
- Metric evaluating how well the generated summary aligns with the input video content.
- `FactVC` — range: [0, 1]
- Metric measuring factual consistency between the generated summary and the source video/abstract.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Video files (containing visual and audio modalities), optionally pre-processed into transcripts or OCR text, accompanied by standardized prompt instructions.
**Output**: A text summary of the scientific presentation, intended to align with the structure and content of the corresponding paper abstract.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_metrics(predictions, references, videos):
scores = {}
scores['ROUGE-1 F1'] = rouge_score(references, predictions, 'rouge1').fmeasure
scores['ROUGE-2 F1'] = rouge_score(references, predictions, 'rouge2').fmeasure
scores['ROUGE-LSum F1'] = rouge_score(references, predictions, 'rougeLsum').fmeasure
scores['SacreBLEU'] = sacrebleu.corpus_bleu(predictions, [references]).score
scores['METEOR'] = meteor_score(references, predictions)
scores['BERTScore'] = bertscore_score(references, predictions, lang='en').f1.mean()
scores['CIDEr-D'] = cider_score(references, predictions)
scores['VideoScore'] = videoscore_model.evaluate(predictions, videos)
scores['FactVC'] = factvc_model.evaluate(predictions, videos, references)
return scores
```
## Common pitfalls
- Models may inadvertently rely solely on audio transcripts or OCR text rather than multimodal video features, skewing alignment scores if not explicitly controlled.
- Factual consistency is particularly challenging for technical scientific content where visual slides contain critical data not present in the audio or abstract.
- Zero-shot, QLoRA, and full fine-tuning settings produce vastly different baselines; comparing them without identical hyperparameter settings leads to unfair benchmarking.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> We report a set of evaluation metrics to measure informativeness, alignment, and factual consistency in summaries. For informativeness, we utilize ROUGE, SacreBLEU, METEOR, BERTScore, and CIDEr-D. Specifically, we provide the F1 scores for Rouge-1 (R1), Rouge-2 (R2), and Rouge-LSum (RLSUM). Alignment to the input video is evaluated with VideoScore, and factual consistency with FactVC.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{liu2025vista,
title={What Is That Talk About? A Video-to-Text Summarization Dataset for Scientific Presentations},
author={Liu et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2502.08279}
}
```
- arXiv: 2502.08279
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!