Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Search and Hyperlinking Overview @MediaEval2014

351 views

Published on

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Search and Hyperlinking Overview @MediaEval2014

  1. 1. Search and Hyperlinking 2014 Overview Maria Eskevich, Robin Aly, David Nicolás Racca Roeland Ordelman, Shu Chen, Gareth J.F. Jones
  2. 2. Find what you were (not) looking for Search & Explore
  3. 3. Jump-in points! X
  4. 4. Users Main group User Target Researchers & Educators Journalists Research Academic researchers & students Investigate Academic educators Educate Public users Citizens Entertainment, Infotainment Media Professionals Broadcast Professionals Reuse Media Archivists Annotate
  5. 5. Recommendation (Linking) Not what we want
  6. 6. Linking Audio-Visual Content
  7. 7. 1998 2002 2008 2010 2013 2015 DATA BIG DATA? not representative representative
  8. 8. Search & Hyperlinking task • User oriented: aim to explore the needs of real users expressed as queries. – How: UK citizens and crowd sourcing for retrieval assessment • Temporal aspect: seek to direct users to the relevant parts of retrieved video (“jump-in point”). – How: segmentation, segment overlap, transcripts. prosodic, visual (low-level, high-level; keyframes) • Multimodal: want to investigate technologies for addressing variety in user needs and expectations – varied visual and audio contributions, intentional gap between query and multimodal descriptors in content
  9. 9. ME Search & Hyperlinking task in development: 2012 – 2014 Search Hyperlinking 2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014 Dataset BlipTv BBC BlipTv BBC Features released:  Transcripts 2 ASR 3 ASR 2 ASR 3 ASR  Prosodic features no yes no yes  Visual clues for queries yes no no  Concept detection yes yes Type of the task Known-item Ad-hoc Ad-hoc Query/Anchors creation PC iPad PC iPad Number of queries/anchors 30/30 4/50 50/30 30/30 11/ 98/30 Relevance assessment MTurk users (BBC) MTurk MTurk Numbers of assessed cases 30 50 9 900 3 517 9 975 13 141 Evaluation metrics MRR, MASP, MASDWP MAP(- bin/tol), MAP MAP(-bin/tol), P@5/10
  10. 10. Dataset: Video collection • BBC copyright cleared broadcast material: – Videos: • Development set: 6 weeks between 01.04.2008 and 11.05.2008 (1335 hours/2323 videos) • Test set: 11 weeks between 12.05.2008 and 31.07.2008 (2686 hours, 3528 videos) – Manually transcribed subtitles – Metadata • Additional data: – ASR: LIMSI/Vocapia, LIUM, NST-Sheffield – Shot boundaries, keyframes – Output of visual concept detectors by University of Leuven, and University of Oxford
  11. 11. Dataset: Query • 28 Users - Policemen, Hair dresser, Bouncer, Sales manger, Student, Self-employed • Two hour session on iPads: – Search the archive (document level) – Define clips (segment level) – Define anchors (anchor level) Statement of Information Need Search Refine Relevant Clips Define Anchors
  12. 12. Data cleaning: Usable Information Need • Description clearly specifies what is relevant • A query with a suitable title exists • Sufficient relevant segments exist (try query)
  13. 13. Data cleaning: Process • For each information need in batch 1. check if usable 2. If in doubt use search to search for relevant data 3. reword & spellcheck description 4. select the first suitable query 5. Save
  14. 14. Data cleaning: Usable Anchor • Longer than 5 seconds • Destination description clearly identifies the material the user wants to see when he would activate the anchor described by label • It is likely that there are some relevant items in the collection
  15. 15. Data cleaning: Process • For each information need in assigned batch – Go through anchors • check if usable • reword & spellcheck description • Assess whether it is like to find links in the collection (possibly using search) – Save
  16. 16. Dataset: outcome (1/2) • 30 queries <top> <queryId>query_6</queryId> <refId>53b3cf9d42b47e4c32545510</refId> <queryText>saturday kitchen cocktails</queryText> </top> <top> <queryId>query_1</queryId> <refId>53b3c64b42b47e4a362be4ce</refId> <queryText>sightseeing london</queryText> </top>
  17. 17. Dataset: outcome (2/2) • 30 anchors: <anchor> <anchorId>anchor_1</anchorId> <refId>53b3c46f42b47e459265d06f</refId> <startTime>16.38</startTime> <endTime>17.35</endTime> <fileName>v20080629_184000_bbctwo_killer_wh ales_in_the</fileName> </anchor>
  18. 18. Ground truth creation • Queries/Anchors: user studies at BBC: - 28 users with following profile:  Age: 18-30 years old  Use of search engines and services on iPads on the daily basis • Relevance assessment: via crowdsourcing on Amazon MTurk platform: – Top 10 results from 58 search and 62 hyperlinking submissions – 1 judgment per query or anchor that was accepted/rejected based on an automated algorithm, special cases of users typos checked manually – Number of evaluated HITs: 9 900 for search, and 13 141 for hyperlinking
  19. 19. • P@5/10/20 • MAP based: Evaluation metrics • MAP: taking into account any overlapping segment: • MAP-bin: relevant segments are binned for relevance: • MAP-tol: only start times of the segments are considered:
  20. 20. RESULTS
  21. 21. Results: Search sub-task: MAP 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 LIMSI/Vocapia Manual No ASR NST/Sheffield LIUM
  22. 22. Results: Search sub-task: MAP_bin 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 LIMSI/Vocapia Manual No ASR NST/Sheffield LIUM
  23. 23. Results: Search sub-task: MAP_tol 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 LIMSI/Vocapia Manual No ASR NST/Sheffield LIUM
  24. 24. Results: Hyperlinking sub-task: MAP 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 CUNI_F_M_NoOverlapAu… CUNI_F_M_NoOverlapKSI… CUNI_F_M_NoOverlapKSI… CUNI_F_M_NoOverlapNo… CUNI_F_M_OverlapKSIWe… CUNI_F_N_NoOverlapAud… CUNI_F_N_NoOverlapKSI… CUNI_F_N_NoOverlapNo… CUNI_O_M_NoOverlapKSI… DCLab_Sh_N_Concept2 DCLab_Sh_N_ConceptEnri… IRISAKUL_Ss_N_HTM IRISAKUL_Ss_N_NGRAM IRISAKUL_Ss_N_TM1 IRISAKUL_Ss_N_TM2 IRISAKUL_Ss_O_NGRAMN… JRS_F_MV_ATextVisR JRS_F_MV_AwConcept JRS_F_MV_CTextVisR JRS_F_MV_CwConcept JRS_F_M_AText JRS_F_M_CText JRS_F_V_AcOnly JRS_F_V_CcOnly LINKEDTV2014_O_O_K LINKEDTV2014_O_VO_KC7S LINKEDTV2014_O_VO_KC… LINKEDTV2014_Ss_N_ALL LINKEDTV2014_Ss_N_TEXT LIMSI/Vocapia Manual No ASR NST/Sheffield LIUM
  25. 25. Results: Hyperlinking sub-task: MAP_bin 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 CUNI_F_M_NoOverlapA… CUNI_F_M_NoOverlapK… CUNI_F_M_NoOverlapK… CUNI_F_M_NoOverlapN… CUNI_F_M_OverlapKSI… CUNI_F_N_NoOverlapAu… CUNI_F_N_NoOverlapKS… CUNI_F_N_NoOverlapNo… CUNI_O_M_NoOverlapK… DCLab_Sh_N_Concept2 DCLab_Sh_N_ConceptEn… IRISAKUL_Ss_N_HTM IRISAKUL_Ss_N_NGRAM IRISAKUL_Ss_N_TM1 IRISAKUL_Ss_N_TM2 IRISAKUL_Ss_O_NGRAM… JRS_F_MV_ATextVisR JRS_F_MV_AwConcept JRS_F_MV_CTextVisR JRS_F_MV_CwConcept JRS_F_M_AText JRS_F_M_CText JRS_F_V_AcOnly JRS_F_V_CcOnly LINKEDTV2014_O_O_K LINKEDTV2014_O_VO_K… LINKEDTV2014_O_VO_K… LINKEDTV2014_Ss_N_ALL LINKEDTV2014_Ss_N_TE… LIMSI/Vocapia Manual No ASR NST/Sheffield LIUM
  26. 26. Results: Hyperlinking sub-task: MAP_tol 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 CUNI_F_M_NoOverlapA… CUNI_F_M_NoOverlapKS… CUNI_F_M_NoOverlapKS… CUNI_F_M_NoOverlapN… CUNI_F_M_OverlapKSIW… CUNI_F_N_NoOverlapAu… CUNI_F_N_NoOverlapKS… CUNI_F_N_NoOverlapNo… CUNI_O_M_NoOverlapK… DCLab_Sh_N_Concept2 DCLab_Sh_N_ConceptEn… IRISAKUL_Ss_N_HTM IRISAKUL_Ss_N_NGRAM IRISAKUL_Ss_N_TM1 IRISAKUL_Ss_N_TM2 IRISAKUL_Ss_O_NGRAM… JRS_F_MV_ATextVisR JRS_F_MV_AwConcept JRS_F_MV_CTextVisR JRS_F_MV_CwConcept JRS_F_M_AText JRS_F_M_CText JRS_F_V_AcOnly JRS_F_V_CcOnly LINKEDTV2014_O_O_K LINKEDTV2014_O_VO_K… LINKEDTV2014_O_VO_K… LINKEDTV2014_Ss_N_ALL LINKEDTV2014_Ss_N_TEXT LIMSI/Vocapia Manual No ASR NST/Sheffield LIUM
  27. 27. Lessons learned 1. iPad vs PC = different user behaviour and expectation from the system. 2. Prosodic features broaden the scope of the search sub-task. 3. Use of shot segmentation based units achieves the worst scores for both sub-tasks. 4. Use of metadata improves results for both sub-tasks.
  28. 28. Lessons learned 1. iPad vs PC = different user behaviour and expectation from the system. 2. Prosodic features broaden the scope of the search sub-task. 3. Use of shot segmentation based units achieves the worst scores for both sub-tasks. 4. Use of metadata improves results for both sub-tasks.
  29. 29. The Search and Hyperlinking task was supported by We are grateful to Jana Eggink and Andy O'Dwyer from the BBC for preparing the collection and hosting the user trials. ... and of course Martha for advise & crowdsourcing access.
  30. 30. JRS at Search and Hyperlinking of Television Content Task Werner Bailer, Harald Stiegler MediaEval Workshop, Barcelona, Oct. 2014
  31. 31. Linking sub-task • Matching terms from textual resources • Reranking based on visual similarity (VLAT) • Using visual concepts (only/in addition) • Results – Differences between different text resources – Context helped only in few of the cases – Visual reranking provides small improvement – Visual concepts did not provide improvements 35
  32. 32. Zsombor Paróczi, Bálint Fodor, Gábor Szűcs Solution with concept enrichment • Concept enrichment: the set of words is extended with their synonyms or other conceptually connected words. • Top 10 vs top 50 conceptually connected words for each word • Conclusion: the results show that concept enrichment with less words give better precision because at the opposite case the noise is greater.
  33. 33. Television Linked To The Web LinkedTV @ MediaEval 2014 Search and Hyperlinking Task H.A. Le1, Q.M. Bui1, B. Huet1, B. Cervenková2, J. Bouchner2, E. Apostolidis3, F. Markatopoulou3, A. Pournaras3, V. Mezaris3, D. Stein4, S. Eickeler4, and M. Stadtschnitzer4 1 - Eurecom, Sophia Antipolis, France. 2 - University of Economics, Prague, Czech Republic. 3 - Information Technologies Institute, CERTH, Thessaloniki, Greece. 4 - Fraunhofer IAIS, Sankt Augustin, Germany. 16-17 Oct 2014 www.linkedtv.eu
  34. 34. Reasons to visit the LinkedTV poster • Different granularities: video level, scene level (visual/topic) and sentence level. • Different features: text (subtitles / transcripts), visual concepts, keywords, etc… LinkedTV @ MediaEval 2014 Search and Hyperlinking Task
  35. 35. Reasons to visit the LinkedTV poster • How to incorporate visual information to the search? • Visual concept detection in the search query: Mapping between query keywords and visual concepts (151 semantic concepts from TRECVID 2012) – Semantic word distance based on WordNet – Identification of salient visual concepts from Google Image search results (query keywords) LinkedTV @ MediaEval 2014 Search and Hyperlinking Task
  36. 36. Reasons to visit the LinkedTV poster • How to incorporate visual information to the search? • Integration of detected visual concepts to the search: – Designing an enriched query, based on textual (text query) and visual information (range query) – Fusion of text score (Solr) and visual concepts scores LinkedTV @ MediaEval 2014 Search and Hyperlinking Task

×