MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894280539 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33019062

Multilevel Language and Vision Integration for Text-to-Clip Retrieval

2019· article· en· W2894280539 on OpenAlexaff
Huijuan Xu, Kun He, Bryan A. Plummer, Leonid Sigal, Stan Sclaroff, Kate Saenko

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMultimodal Machine Learning Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersIntelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity
KeywordsComputer scienceTask (project management)CLIPSMatching (statistics)Metric (unit)Natural language processingArtificial intelligenceSentenceSimilarity (geometry)Word (group theory)Recurrent neural networkArtificial neural networkInformation retrievalImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We address the problem of text-based activity retrieval in video. Given a sentence describing an activity, our task is to retrieve matching clips from an untrimmed video. To capture the inherent structures present in both text and video, we introduce a multilevel model that integrates vision and language features earlier and more tightly than prior work. First, we inject text features early on when generating clip proposals, to help eliminate unlikely clips and thus speed up processing and boost performance. Second, to learn a fine-grained similarity metric for retrieval, we use visual features to modulate the processing of query sentences at the word level in a recurrent neural network. A multi-task loss is also employed by adding query re-generation as an auxiliary task. Our approach significantly outperforms prior work on two challenging benchmarks: Charades-STA and ActivityNet Captions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations332
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207