Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the performance of generative vs. discriminative classifiers based on MLLMs for closed-set action understanding, finding that discriminative classifiers offer superior accuracy and efficiency. To improve generative classifiers, the authors introduce strategies to bridge the performance gap with discriminative models. They then propose a Generation-Assisted Discriminative (GAD) classifier that leverages generative modeling during fine-tuning to enhance discriminative performance, achieving state-of-the-art results on temporal action understanding benchmarks.
Generative MLLMs are slow and ambiguous for action classification, but a new method uses generation to boost discriminative models, achieving state-of-the-art results with faster inference.
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have advanced open-world action understanding and can be adapted as generative classifiers for closed-set settings by autoregressively generating action labels as text. However, this approach is inefficient, and shared subwords across action labels introduce semantic overlap, leading to ambiguity in generation. In contrast, discriminative classifiers learn task-specific representations with clear decision boundaries, enabling efficient one-step classification without autoregressive decoding. We first compare generative and discriminative classifiers with MLLMs for closed-set action understanding, revealing the superior accuracy and efficiency of the latter. To bridge the performance gap, we design strategies that elevate generative classifiers toward performance comparable with discriminative ones. Furthermore, we show that generative modeling can complement discriminative classifiers, leading to better performance while preserving efficiency. To this end, we propose Generation-Assisted Discriminative~(GAD) classifier for closed-set action understanding. GAD operates only during fine-tuning, preserving full compatibility with MLLM pretraining. Extensive experiments on temporal action understanding benchmarks demonstrate that GAD improves both accuracy and efficiency over generative methods, achieving state-of-the-art results on four tasks across five datasets, including an average 2.5% accuracy gain and 3x faster inference on our largest COIN benchmark.
