Catching the Temporal Regions-of-Interest for Video Captioning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it