Multimodal Features for Search and Hyperlinking of Video Content

Petra Galuščákovágaluscakova@ufal.mff.cuni.cz

Institute of Formal and Applied LinguisticsCharles University in Prague

29. 10. 2014

2

Outline

● Speech Retrieval and Hyperlinking● Data and Evaluation● System Description● Passage Retrieval, Segmentation of Recordings● Visual and Prosodic Information

3

Speech Retrieval and Hyperlinking

4

Search in Audio-Visual Documents

● Input:● Data collection (video recordings)● Query

– Given as text● Output:

● Relevant segments (passages) of documents● E.g. “Children out on poetry trip Exploration of poetry by

school children Poem writing”, “Space-Cowboys Space Pirates Pirates in Space talking music”, “animal park, kenya marathon , wildlife reserve”

5

Hyperlinking

● Input:● Data collection (video recordings) ● Query segment

● Output: ● Segments similar to the query

segment

6

Data and Evaluation

7

● MediaEval is a benchmarking initiative dedicated to development, comparison, and improvement of strategies for processing and retrieving multimedia content.

● E.g. speech recognition, multimedia content analysis, music and audio analysis, user-contributed information (tags, tweets), viewer affective response, social networks, temporal and geo-coordinates

● 2012 MediaEval Search and Hyperlinking Task● 2013 MediaEval Search and Hyperlinking Task● 2013 Similar Segments in Social Speech Task● 2014 MediaEval Search and Hyperlinking Task

8

Search and Hyperlinking Task

● The main goal of the Search Subtask● Find passages relevant to a user’s interest given by a textual query in

a large set of audio-visual recordings● And of the Hyperlinking Subtask:

● To find more passages similar to the retrieved ones● Scenario:

● A user wants to find a piece of information relevant to a given query in a collection of TV programmes (Search subtask)

● And then navigate through a large archive using hyperlinks to the retrieved segments (Hyperlinking subtask)

9

Search and Hyperlinking Task 2014 Data

● TV programme recordings provided by BBC● All BBC programmes broadcasted during 4 months● 1335 hours for training, 2686 hours for testing

● Subtitles and three ASR transcripts (LIMSI, LIUM, and NST Sheffield)

● Metadata, detected shots, stable keyframes, prosodic features● Search: 50 training and 30 test queries

● E.g. sightseeing london, egypt travel, celebrity diet● Hyperlinking: 30 training and 30 test queries

● Given as a query segment (beginning and end)

10

Evaluation

● Full document retrieval → MRR● RR = 1 / rank of the first correctly retrieved document● MRR = average of the RR values for the set of the queries

● Retrieval of the exact passages → MRR-window● Starting points of retrieved segments is limited to appear less

than 60 seconds from the starting point of the relevant segment to be considered as correctly retrieved

● MRRw = average of the RRw values for the set of the queries● Retrieval of the exact passages → mGAP, MASP

● Takes into account the exact beginning (end) of a relevant segment

11

Evaluation Cont.

● MAP, P5, P10, P20

● MAP-bin

● MAP-tol

Aly R., Eskevich M., Ordelman R., and Jones G.J.F.: Adapting Binary Information Retrieval Evaluation Metrics for Segment-based Retrieval Tasks. Technical Report, 2013.

12

System Description

13

Passage Retrieval

● Documents are automatically divided into shorter segments● Segments serve as documents in the traditional IR setup● The segmentation is crucial for the quality of the retrieval

– Especially the segment length → We focus on the segmentation strategies

14

Effect of Passage Retrieval

Segm.Manual ASR

MRR MRRw mGAP MRR MRRw mGAP

None 0.879 0.315 0.029 0.858 0.333 0.027

Manual 0.897 0.671 0.277 0.885 0.669 0.247

● Segmentation may highly improve retrieval of the segment beginnings (MRRw and mGAP measures)

● Segmentation may improve retrieval of full recordings (MRR measure)

Similar Segments in Social Speech Task 2013

15

Baseline System

● We employ the Terrier IR toolkit● Hiemstra language model

● Parameter set to 0.35 (importance of a query term in a document)● Stopwords removal, stemming● Post-filtering of the answers

16

Post-filtering Effect● MAP, P5, P10 and P20 are notably higher in the experiments in

which we did not remove partially overlapping segments● These measures do not distinguish, whether a user had

already seen the retrieved segment● The overlapping segments are expected not to be so

beneficial for the users

Transcript Filtering MAP P5 P10 P20 MAP-bin MAP-tol

Subtitles Yes 0.3692 0.7467 0.7133 0.6050 0.2606 0.2157

Subtitles No 16.3486 0.8400 0.8367 0.8433 0.3172 0.0515

Search and Hyperlinking Task 2014 (Search subtask)

17

Baseline System - Hyperlinking

● Transformed into Search subtask● Query segment is transformed into a textual query by

including all the words of the subtitles lying within the segment boundary

● Queries created on subtitles outperform ASR queries● Even if we run the retrieval on the ASR transcripts

18

System Tuning● Metadata

● Concatenate metadata with each segment● Title, episode title, description, short episode synopsis,

service name and program variant● In Hyperlinking: Concatenate metadata with the query

segment● Context

● In Hyperlinking: use 200 seconds before the segment beginning and after the segment end

19

System Tuning Cont.

● Search

● Hyperlinking

Search and Hyperlinking Task 2014

Transcript Tuning MAP P5 P10 P20 MAP-bin MAP-tol

Subtitles None 0.4209 0.7933 0.7433 0.5950 0.3192 0.3155

Subtitles Metadata 0.5127 0.7467 0.7267 0.6100 0.3538 0.3023

Transcript Tuning MAP P5 P10 P20 MAP-bin MAP-tol

Subtitles None 0.1147 0.3071 0.2786 0.2036 0.1021 0.0792

Subtitles Metadata+Context 0.4072 0.8067 0.7000 0.5417 0.2611 0.2237

20

Segmentation Strategies

21

Segmentation Types

● Fixed-length (Window-based)● Segments of equilong length with regular shift● Claimed to be a very effective approach

● Similarity-based● Measure the similarity between neighboring segments (e.g. cosine

distance)● Algorithms TextTiling and C99

● Lexical-chain-based● A sequence of lexicographically related word occurrences

● Feature-based

22

Fixed-Length Segmentation Comparison

● S – Sentence● Sh – Shot● Sp – Speech Segment● TP – Time + Pause● TO – Time + Overlap (Fixed-

Length Segment)

Search and Hyperlinking Task 2012 (Search Subtask)

M. Eskevich et al.: Multimedia information seeking through search and hyperlinking, ICMR 2013.

23

Fixed-length SegmentationSegment Length

Search and Hyperlinking Task 2013 (Search subtask)

24

Fixed-length SegmentationSegment Shift

Search and Hyperlinking Task 2013 (Search subtask)

25

Feature-based Segmentation

26

Feature-based Segmentation

● We identify possible segment boundaries (beginnings and ends)

● J48 decision trees (almost equivalent to C4.5), Weka framework

● Training data available for the Similar Segments in Social Speech Task, MediaEval 2013● Manually marked segments● Conversations between university students

● Binary classification problem● For each word in the transcripts, we predict whether a

segment boundary occurs after this word● Classes: segment boundary and segment continuation

27

Used Features

● Cue words and tags● N-grams which frequently appear at segment boundaries ● N-grams most informative for segment boundaries ● Manually defined n-grams

● Letter cases● Length of the silence before the word

● Measured as a difference between timestamps of two adjacent words

● Division given in transcripts (e.g., speech segments defined in the LIMSI transcripts)

● The output of the TextTiling algorithm

28

Most Informative Features

● Division defined in the transcripts● The length of silence

● Especially if it is longer than 300ms, 400ms, 500ms, 600ms)● TextTiling algorithm output● Segment beginnings: “if”, “I’m”, “especially”, “the”, “are you”,

“you have”, “VBP PRP VBG”, …● Segment ends: “good”, “interesting”, “lot”, …

29

Feature-based Segmentation Approaches

30

Feature-based Segmentation Approaches Comparison

Beg. End MRR MRRw mGAP #Seg Len [s]-- -- 0.656 0.052 0.027 2 k 2531.6

Reg Reg 0.671 0.388 0.245 234 k 49.5ML -- 0.549 0.117 0.060 3125 k 2.3-- ML 0.607 0.310 0.192 280 k 29.0

ML B+50 0.685 0.412 0.272 5820 k 49.6E+50 ML 0.715 0.428 0.298 2580 k 49.6

ML ML 0.626 0.392 0.229 5659 k 20.2

Search and Hyperlinking Task 2013 (Search subtask), Results on the subtitles

31

Feature-based Segmentation vs. Fixed-Length Segmentation

● Search Task

● Hyperlinking Task

Transcript Segm. Seg.Len. MAP P5 P10 P20 MAP-

binMAP-

tol

Subtitles Fixed 60s 0.5127 0.7467 0.7267 0.6100 0.3538 0.3023

Subtitles Features 50s 0.8028 0.7867 0.7667 0.6933 0.3199 0.2350

Search and Hyperlinking Task 2014

Transcript Segm. Seg.Len. MAP P5 P10 P20 MAP-

binMAP-

tol

Subtitles Fixed 60s 0.4366 0.8667 0.7700 0.5633 0.2724 0.2580

Subtitles Features 50s 0.8253 0.8867 0.8567 0.7383 0.2525 0.1991

32

Visual Information in Segmentation

● Training data used for segmentation tuning are visually static visual information would not be helpful→

● Create segments only if visual similarity between adjacent segment < weight

● Tune the weight on the Search and Hyperlinking training data

Transcript Segm. MAP P5 P10 P20 MAP-bin

MAP-tol

Subtitles Features 0.8028 0.7867 0.7667 0.6933 0.3199 0.2350

Subtitles Features+Visual 0.7701 0.7600 0.7500 0.6733 0.3285 0.2530

Search and Hyperlinking Task 2014 (Search Subtask)

33

Visual and Prosodic Similarity

34

Visual Similarity

35

Visual Similarity Cont.

● We use Feature Signatures and Signature Quadratic Form Distance

http://siret.ms.mff.cuni.cz

36

Visual Similarity Results

Transcript Meta. Weights MAP P5 P10 P20 MAP-bin

MAP-tol

Subtitles No None 0.1618 0.4786 0.4107 0.2893 0.1423 0.1216Subtitles No Visual 0.1660 0.4929 0.4143 0.3000 0.1483 0.1245Subtitles Yes None 0.4301 0.8600 0.7767 0.5483 0.2689 0.2465Subtitles Yes Visual 0.4366 0.8667 0.7700 0.5633 0.2724 0.2580

LIMSI Yes None 0.4166 0.8533 0.7133 0.5450 0.2659 0.2297LIMSI Yes Visual 0.4168 0.8667 0.7333 0.5400 0.2692 0.2414LIUM Yes None 0.4226 0.8333 0.7300 0.5433 0.2593 0.2547LIUM Yes Visual 0.4212 0.8400 0.7367 0.5350 0.2622 0.2632NST Yes None 0.4072 0.8067 0.7000 0.5417 0.2611 0.2237NST Yes Visual 0.4160 0.8267 0.7167 0.5483 0.2655 0.2440

Search and Hyperlinking Task 2014 (Hyperlinking subtask)

37

Visual Similarity Results -Positive Query Examples

38

Visual Similarity Results -Negative Query Examples

39

Prosodic Similarity

40

Prosodic Similarity Results

Transcript Meta. Weights MAP P5 P10 P20 MAP-bin

MAP-tol

Subtitles Yes None 0.4301 0.8600 0.7767 0.5483 0.2689 0.2465

Subtitles Yes Prosodic 0.4321 0.8533 0.7767 0.5517 0.2687 0.2473

Search and Hyperlinking Task 2014 (Hyperlinking subtask)

● Small but promising improvement

41

System Comparison

42

Search Task

43

Hyperlinking Task

44

Conclusion

45

Conclusion

● Passage Retrieval ● Improves retrieval of relevant segments● Can improve retrieval of full recordings

● Segmentation approach is crucial for the retrieval● Fixed-length segmentation works well● Feature-based segmentation outperforms fixed-length

segmentation● Visual and prosodic similarity can improve results of text-

based retrieval

46

Thank you

This research is supported by the Charles University Grant Agency (GA UK n. 920913)