Catching the Temporal Regions-of-Interest for Video Captioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a crucial challenge for video understanding, exploiting the spatial-temporal structure of video has attracted much attention recently, especially on video captioning. Inspired by the insight that people always focus on certain interested regions of video content, we propose a novel approach which will automatically focus on regions-of-interest and catch their temporal structures. In our approach, we utilize a specific attention model to adaptively select regions-of-interest for each video frame. Then a Dual Memory Recurrent Model (DMRM) is introduced to incorporate temporal structure of global features and regions-of-interest features in parallel, which will obtain rough understanding of video content and particular information of regions-of-interest. Since the attention model could not always catch the right interests, we additionally adopt semantic supervision to attend to interested regions more correctly. We evaluate our method for video captioning on two public benchmarks: the Microsoft Video Description Corpus (MSVD) and the Montreal Video Annotation Dataset (M-VAD). The experiments demonstrate that catching temporal regions-of-interest information really enhances the representation of input videos and our approach obtains the state-of-the-art results on popular evaluation metrics like BLEU-4, CIDEr, and METEOR.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".