Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a novel approach to personalized video recommendation that distinguishes between the localization of relevant moments and the validity of evidence for recommending a video to a user. By developing the CBGER-10K dataset, which contains controlled factual-counterfactual pairs, the authors evaluate how model predictions change when evidence is manipulated. The proposed CBGER framework achieves significant improvements in Pair Accuracy, highlighting that effective temporal localization does not guarantee the presence of reliable evidence for personalization.
Accurate moment localization in video recommendations doesn't ensure valid evidence for user preferences, revealing a critical gap in existing models.
Personalized video recommendation predicts user preference at the video level, while temporal video grounding localizes query-relevant moments. However, strong localization does not establish whether the retrieved moment constitutes valid evidence for recommending the video to a particular user. We study counterfactual behavior-grounded evidence retrieval, which separates where personalized evidence occurs from whether such evidence exists and evaluates whether model predictions respond consistently when that evidence is replaced. We introduce CBGER-10K, containing 5,000 controlled factual--counterfactual pairs for 3,026 users, where each pair replaces only the focal behavior-supported segment while preserving the user, temporal position, and hard distractors. We further propose CBGER, a compact framework that decouples segment-level localization from video-level evidence estimation and learns both through structured counterfactual supervision. CBGER achieves $0.4432$ MRR, $0.6977$ Pair Accuracy, and $0.6987$ Intervention Consistency across five adapted personalized-highlight and temporal-grounding baselines. Notably, compared with QD-DETR, its MRR improvement is not statistically significant, while Pair Accuracy improves by $11.03$ points. These results show that accurate temporal localization does not necessarily imply reliable personalized evidence existence, motivating explicit evaluation of Whether alongside Where.