MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2527334262

CRIM's content-based copy detection system for TRECVID

2009· article· en· W2527334262 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maguelonne Héritier, Vishwa Gupta, Langis Gagnon, Gilles Boulianne, Samuel Foucher, Patrick Cardinal

Bibliographic record

VenueTRECVID · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Analysis and Summarization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceProbabilistic logicPattern recognition (psychology)Key (lock)Matching (statistics)Nearest neighbor searchFeature (linguistics)k-nearest neighbors algorithmTask (project management)Feature vectorShot (pellet)MathematicsStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approach we have tested in our submitted runs: For visualbased copy detection, we find links between video shot key-frames using a probabilistic latent space model over local matches between the keyframe images. This facilitates the extraction of significant groups of local matching descriptors that may represent common semantic elements of near duplicate key-frames. For 2009, we have worked on an optimal representation of the test database. We first select the discriminant local descriptors. Then, we quantize the selected local descriptors into a hierarchical structure. For audio based copy detection, we give results with two different feature parameters: 15-bit energy difference parameters similar to [1] and a feature-based mapping of test frames to query frames. Differences we found among the runs: We submitted 1 run for the video only copy detection task (same run for Balanced and for nofa). Four runs were submitted for the ”audio only” copy detection task : • CRIM.a.NOFA.EnNN2pass: energy-diff parameter search rescored with nearest-neighbor mapping. • CRIM.a.NOFA.NN22para: search using nearest-neighbor mapping. • CRIM.a.BALANCED.EnNN2pass: lower threshold than for NOFA case. • CRIM.a.BALANCED.EnNN22wt15: fuse Energy-diff parameters search (wt 15) with nearest-neighbor mapping search. We fused the video submission from CRIM with each of the four audio only submissions to get four different submissions for audio+video copy detection task. The threshold was adjusted based on the results of 2008 a+v queries. Relative contribution of each component of our approach: For visual-based copy detection, the probabilistic latent space model over local matches between the key-frame images produces a robust and accurate filtering process in relation to all possible local matches. It works well even if there are only a few local matches between the key-frames of the copied video in question. We have introduced a new method for SIFT quantizing. It improves the time computation performance while keeping a good precision for SIFT representation. For audio only copy detection, the fingerprints obtained by mapping each test frame to the nearest query frame (NN-based fingerprints) reduced minimal NDCR by half over that obtained with energy-difference based fingerprints. This work was supported in part by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) What we learned about runs/approaches and the research question(s) that motivated them : Approaches based on local descriptor matching are efficient for video copy detection but very time consuming. Our method is more adapted when there is very little common visual information to establish a link between two key-frames. Video copy detection may not need such a good precision. For audio copy detection, mapping each test frame to the nearest query frame (NN-mapping) results in robust audio copy detection. The minimal normalized detection cost rate (NDCR) for even the worst case transformations is less than 0.03 for 2008 queries, and less than 0.075 for 2009 queries. The algorithm provides easy parallel processing on a graphics processing unit, leading to a very fast search.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0070.004
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.034

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTRECVIDSame topicVideo Analysis and SummarizationFrench-language works237,207