VidCom2 Vs. UniComp: Overlap And Citation Concerns

In the realm of academic research, the integrity of scholarly work is paramount. It relies heavily on the transparent acknowledgment of prior contributions and the honest presentation of original ideas. This article delves into a formal concern raised by the authors of VidCom² regarding the similarities observed in the UniComp paper, focusing on the importance of proper citation and intellectual honesty within the research community.

A Formal Concern: Similarities Between VidCom2 and UniComp

We, the authors of VidCom², are writing to express our serious concern about the striking similarities between our recently published paper and the arXiv paper UniComp. Our concern stems from the fact that despite the notable overlaps in key concepts and formulations, the UniComp paper fails to cite our work, even though VidCom² was publicly available on arXiv a full six months prior. This raises questions about scholarly integrity and the proper acknowledgment of prior research, which are fundamental to the academic process.

Identifying the Overlaps: Key Areas of Concern

After a thorough review of the UniComp paper, we identified several key areas where significant similarities exist between the two works. These overlaps extend beyond mere coincidences, encompassing both the core concepts and the mathematical formulations used to express them. It's crucial to highlight these similarities to understand the gravity of the situation and the necessity for a clear explanation.

Token Uniqueness Metric: An Almost Identical Approach

One of the most notable similarities lies in the approach to measuring token uniqueness. Both papers propose using negative similarity as the basis for this measurement and even define the uniqueness score using the same symbol, u. Specifically:

• UniComp: Equations (1) and (2)
• VidCom²: Equations (3) and (7)

The mathematical formulations presented in these equations are almost identical, suggesting a direct influence or, at the very least, a parallel development that warrants acknowledgment. This level of similarity in the core methodology is a major point of concern, as it directly impacts the originality and novelty of the UniComp paper.

Token Allocation Strategy: A Shared Conceptual Framework

Another significant overlap exists in the token allocation strategy. Both papers argue that more unique frames should be allocated more tokens. This concept, central to both research endeavors, is articulated through remarkably similar equations:

• UniComp Section 3.3 “Token Allocation”, Equation (11)
• VidCom² Section 3.3 “Frame Compression Adjustment”, Equation (5)

The conceptual motivations and the structure of these equations are alarmingly similar, further reinforcing the need for a detailed explanation and proper citation. This shared framework raises serious questions about the independent development of these ideas and the extent to which VidCom²'s contributions were considered.

The Timeline: VidCom2's Prior Publication

It's important to emphasize the timeline of these publications. VidCom² was first posted on arXiv in May 2025 and subsequently accepted to EMNLP 2025 Main. This means that our work was publicly available for a significant period before the UniComp paper was submitted. Upon reviewing the UniComp manuscript, we confirmed that VidCom² is not cited, a critical oversight given the substantial overlaps in methodology and concepts. This lack of citation is particularly concerning because it fails to acknowledge the prior contributions of our research team and could potentially mislead readers about the originality of the UniComp paper.

The Request for Clarity and Scholarly Integrity

While we recognize that independent research may occasionally lead to similar ideas, the degree of overlap in both the formulation and notation of key concepts in UniComp is concerning. This has compelled us to formally request the following actions from the authors of UniComp. These requests are aimed at upholding scholarly integrity and ensuring the proper recognition of prior work.

Demanding a Clear Explanation

First and foremost, we request a clear explanation from the UniComp team regarding the similarities between our works. This explanation should provide insights into the research process, the sources consulted, and the rationale behind the chosen methodologies. Understanding the context in which these similarities arose is crucial for addressing our concerns and ensuring transparency within the research community. A detailed explanation will help determine whether the overlaps were coincidental, influenced by our prior work, or the result of a misunderstanding.

Insisting on Proper Citation

In any forthcoming versions of UniComp, such as conference submissions or arXiv revisions, we request the inclusion of a proper citation to VidCom². This is a fundamental requirement for academic integrity, as it acknowledges the prior work and allows readers to understand the context of the research. Proper citation ensures that credit is given where it is due and that the intellectual contributions of VidCom² are recognized.

Advocating for Comparative Discussion

We also request a comparative discussion of VidCom² in the Related Work or Methodological sections of the UniComp paper. This discussion should highlight the similarities and differences between the two approaches, providing a comprehensive understanding of the research landscape. A comparative analysis will not only benefit the readers but also contribute to a more accurate representation of the scholarly contributions in this field. This will allow the research community to better understand the evolution of ideas and the specific contributions of each paper.

The Importance of Scholarly Integrity

We trust that the authors of UniComp understand the importance of scholarly integrity, which depends on the transparent acknowledgment of prior contributions. The foundation of academic research is built upon the principles of honesty, transparency, and respect for the work of others. Failure to adhere to these principles can have serious consequences, not only for the individuals involved but also for the integrity of the entire research community.

Transparent Acknowledgment of Prior Contributions

Transparent acknowledgment of prior contributions is essential for maintaining the credibility of research. It ensures that researchers are given due credit for their work and that the progress of knowledge is accurately documented. By citing previous work, researchers demonstrate that they are aware of the existing literature and that their contributions build upon the foundation laid by others. This transparency is vital for fostering trust and collaboration within the research community.

Building Trust and Collaboration

Scholarly integrity is not just about avoiding plagiarism; it's also about fostering a culture of trust and collaboration. When researchers acknowledge the contributions of others, they create an environment where ideas can be shared and built upon. This collaborative spirit is essential for driving innovation and advancing knowledge. By upholding the principles of scholarly integrity, we can create a research ecosystem that is both productive and ethical.

Conclusion: Awaiting a Constructive Response

We await a prompt and constructive response from the UniComp authors regarding this matter. Our goal is to ensure that the principles of scholarly integrity are upheld and that the contributions of VidCom² are properly recognized. We believe that a transparent and open dialogue will help resolve these concerns and contribute to a stronger, more ethical research community. This situation serves as a reminder of the importance of vigilance and the need for researchers to be proactive in protecting their work and upholding the highest standards of academic conduct.

For more information on academic integrity and citation practices, please visit resources like the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). This organization provides guidelines and resources for researchers, editors, and publishers to promote ethical practices in scholarly publishing. By adhering to these guidelines, we can ensure that research is conducted and disseminated in a responsible and ethical manner.