Unsupervised Semantic Action Discovery from Video Collections

05/11/2016 ∙ by Ozan Sener, et al. ∙ cornell university Stanford University 0

Human communication takes many forms, including speech, text and instructional videos. It typically has an underlying structure, with a starting point, ending, and certain objective steps between them. In this paper, we consider instructional videos where there are tens of millions of them on the Internet. We propose a method for parsing a video into such semantic steps in an unsupervised way. Our method is capable of providing a semantic "storyline" of the video composed of its objective steps. We accomplish this using both visual and language cues in a joint generative model. Our method can also provide a textual description for each of the identified semantic steps and video segments. We evaluate our method on a large number of complex YouTube videos and show that our method discovers semantically correct instructions for a variety of tasks.

READ FULL TEXT VIEW PDF
POST COMMENT

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Authors

page 2

page 5

page 9

page 13

page 14

page 15

page 16

This week in AI

Get the week's most popular data science and artificial intelligence research sent straight to your inbox every Saturday.

1 Introduction

In the last decade, we have seen a significant democratization in the way we access and generate information. One of the major shifts has been in moving from expert-curated information sources into crowd-generated large scale knowledge bases such as Wikipedia(Wikipedia, 2004). For example, the way we generate and access cooking recipes has been transformed substantially. Google Trends(Google, 2016) indicates that in the year of 2005 number of Google searches for cookbooks were times larger than the number of searches for cooking videos. In the year 2016, the number of searches for cooking videos is times larger than that of cookbooks. This behavior is mostly due to the large volume of cooking videos available on the internet. In an era where an average user gets 2 million videos for the query How to make a pancake?

, we need computer vision algorithms that can understand such information and represent it to the users in a compact form. Such algorithms are not only useful for humans to digest millions of videos but also useful for robots to learn concepts from online video collections in order to perform tasks.

Considering the intractability of supervised information in large-scale video collections, we believe the key to the unsupervised grounding is utilizing the structural assumptions. Human communication takes many forms, including language and videos. For instance, explaining “how-to” perform a certain task can be communicated via language (e.g., Do-It-Yourself books) as well as visual (e.g., instructional YouTube videos) information. Regardless of the form, such human-generated communication is generally structured and has a clear beginning, end, and a set of steps in between. Finding this hidden and objective steps of human communication is a critical step to understand large video collections.

Language and vision provide different, but correlating and complementary information. Challenge lies in that both video frames and language (from subtitles generated via Automatic Speech Recognition) are only a noisy, partial observation of the actions being performed. However, the complementary nature of language and vision gives the opportunity to understand the activities only from these partial observations. In this paper, we present a unified model, considering both of the modalities, in order to parse human activities into activity steps with no form of supervision other than requiring videos to be the same category (e.g., all cooking eggs, changing tires, etc.).

Figure 1: Given a large video collection (frames and subtitles) of an instructional category (e.g., How to cook an ommelette?), we discover activity steps (e.g., crack the eggs). We also parse the videos based on the discovered steps.

The key idea in our approach is the observation that the large collection of videos, pertaining to the same activity class, typically include only a few objective activity steps, and the variability is the result of exponentially many ways of generating videos from activity steps through subset selection and time ordering. We study this construction based on the large-scale information available in YouTube in the form of instructional videos (e.g., “Making panckage”, “How to tie a bow tie”). Instructional videos have many desirable properties like the volume of the information and a well defined notion of activity step. However, the proposed parsing method is applicable to any type of videos as long as they are composed of a set of steps.

The output of our method can be seen as the semantic “storyline” of a rather long and complex video collection (see Fig. 1). This storyline provides what particular steps are taking place in the video collection, when they are occurring, and what their meaning is (what-when-how). This method also puts videos performing the same overall task in common ground and capture their high-level relations.

In the proposed approach, given a collection of videos, we first generate a set of language and visual atoms. These atoms are the result of relating object proposals from each frame as well as detecting the frequent words from subtitles. We then employ a generative beta process mixture model, which identifies the activity steps shared among the videos of the same category based on a representation using learned atoms. Although we do not explicity enforce this steps to be semantically meaningful, our results highly correlate with the semantic steps. In our method, we do neither use any spatial or temporal label on actions/steps nor any labels on object categories. We later learn a Markov language model to provide a textual description of the activity steps based on the language atoms it frequently uses.

We evaluate our approach on various settings. First of all, we collected a large-scale dataset of instructional videos from YouTube following the most frequently performed how to queries. Then, we evaluate temporal parsing quality per video and also a semantic clustering per category (how-to query). Second of all, we extensively analyze the contribution of each modality as well as the robustness against the language noise. Robustness against the language noise is a critical one since ASR always expected to have some errors. Moreover, results suggest that both language and vision is critical for semantic parsing. Finally, we discuss and present a novel robotics application. We start with a single query and generate a detailed physical plan to perform the task. We present a compelling simulation results suggesting that our algorithm has a great potential for robotics applications.

2 Related Work

Designing an artificial intelligence agent which can understand human generated videos have been topic of computer vision and robotics researchers for decades. Motivated by the application of surveillance, video summarization was one of the earliest methods which are related to our problem. The surveillance applications further motivated the activity and event recognition methods. With the help of the availability of larger datasets, researchers managed to train machine learning models which can detect certain events. Recently, the datasets have gotten larger and cross-modal enabling algorithms which can link vision with language. In the mean time, the focus of robotics community was on parsing recipes directly for manipulation. We list and discuss related works from each field in the following sections.

2.1 Video Summarization:

Summarizing an input video as a sequence of key frames (static) or video clips (dynamic) is useful for both multimedia search interfaces and retrieval purposes. Early works in the area are summarized in (Truong and Venkatesh, 2007) and mostly focus on choosing keyframes.

Summarizing videos is particularly important for some specific domains like ego-centric videos and news reports as they are generally long in duration. There are many succesful works (Lee et al, 2012; Lu and Grauman, 2013; Rui et al, 2000); however, they mostly rely on characteristics specific to the domain.

Summarization is also applied to the large image collections by recovering the temporal ordering and visual similarity of images

(Kim and Xing, 2014), and by Gupta et al.  (Gupta et al, 2009) to videos in a supervised framework using action annotations. These collections are also used for key-frame selection (Khosla et al, 2013) and further extended to video clip selection (Kim et al, 2014; Potapov et al, 2014). Unlike all of these methods which focus on forming a set of key frames/clips for a compact summary (which is not necessarily semantically meaningful), we provide a fresh approach to video summarization by performing it through semantic parsing on vision and language. However, regardless of this dissimilarity, we experimentally compare our method against them.

2.2 Modeling Visual and Language Information:

Learning the relationship between the visual and language data is a crucial problem due to its immense applications. Early methods (Barnard et al, 2003) in this area focus on learning a common multi-modal space in order to jointly represent language and vision. They are further extended to learning higher level relations between object segments and words (Socher and Fei-Fei, 2010). Similarly, Zitnick et al.(Zitnick et al, 2013; Zitnick and Parikh, 2013) used abstracted clip-arts to understand spatial relations of objects and their language correspondences. Kong et al. (Kong et al, 2014) and Fidler et al. (Fidler et al, 2013) both accomplished the task of learning spatial reasoning by only using the image captions. Relations extracted from image-caption pairs, are further used to help semantic parsing (Yu and Siskind, 2013) and activity recognition (Motwani and Mooney, 2012). Recent works also focus on automatic generation of image captions with underlying ideas ranging from finding similar images and transferring their captions (Ordonez et al, 2011) to learning language models conditioned on the image features (Kiros et al, 2014; Socher et al, 2014; Farhadi et al, 2010); their employed approach to learning language models is typically either based on graphical models (Farhadi et al, 2010)

or neural networks

(Socher et al, 2014; Kiros et al, 2014; Karpathy and Fei-Fei, 2014).

All aforementioned methods are using supervised labels either as strong image-word pairs or weak image-caption pairs, while our method is fully unsupervised.

2.3 Activity/Event Recognition:

The literature of activity recognition is broad. The closest techniques to ours are either supervised or focus on detecting a particular (and often short) action in a weakly/unsupervised manner. Also, a large body of action recognition methods are intended for trimmed videos clips or remain limited to detecting very short actions (Kuehne et al, 2011; Soomro et al, 2012; Niebles et al, 2010; Laptev et al, 2008; Efros et al, 2003; Ryoo and Aggarwal, 2009). Even though some recent works attempted action recognition in untrimmed videos (Jiang et al, 2014; Oneata et al, 2014; Jain et al, 2014), they are mostly fully supervised.

Additionally, several method for localizing instances of actions in rather longer video sequences have been developed (Duchenne et al, 2009; Hoai et al, 2011; Laptev and Pérez, 2007; Bojanowski et al, 2014; Pirsiavash and Ramanan, 2014). Our work is different from those in terms of being multimodal, unsupervised, applicable to a video collection, and not limited to identifying predefined actions or the ones with short temporal spans. Also, the previous works on finding action primitives such as (Niebles et al, 2010; Yao and Fei-Fei, 2010; Jain et al, 2013; Lan et al, 2014b, a) are primarily limited to discovering atomic sub-actions, and therefore, fail to identify complex and high-level parts of a long video.

Recently, event recounting has attracted much interest and intends to identify the evidential segments for which a video belongs to a certain class (Sun and Nevatia, 2014; Das et al, 2013; Barbu et al, 2012). Event recounting is a relatively new topic and the existing methods mostly employ a supervised approach. Also, their end goal is to identify what parts of a video are highly related to an event, and not parsing the video into semantic steps.

2.4 Recipe Understanding:

Following the interest in community generated recipes in the web, there have been many attempts to automatically process recipes. Recent methods on natural language processing

(Malmaud et al, 2014; Tenorth et al, 2010) focus on semantic parsing of language recipes in order to extract actions and the objects in the form of predicates. Tenorth et al.(Tenorth et al, 2010) further process the predicates in order to form a complete logic plan. The aforementioned approaches focus only on the language modality and they are not applicable to the videos. The recent advances (Beetz et al, 2011; Bollini et al, 2011) in robotics use the parsed recipe in order to perform cooking tasks. They use supervised object detectors and report a successful autonomous experiment. In addition to the language based approaches, Malmaud et al.(Malmaud et al, 2015) consider both language and vision modalities and propose a method to align an input video to a recipe. However, it can not extract the steps automatically and requires a ground truth recipe to align. On the contrary, our method uses both visual and language modalities and extracts the actions while autonomously discovering the steps. There is also an approach which generates multi-modal recipes from expert demonstrations (Grabler et al, 2009). However, it is developed only for the domain of ”teaching user interfaces” and are not applicable to videos.

In summary, three aspects differentiate this work from the majority of existing techniques: 1) discovering semantic steps from a video category, 2) being unsupervised, 3) adopting a multi-modal joint vision-language model for video parsing.

3 Problem Overview

Our algorithm takes an how-to sentence as an input query which we further use to download a large-collection of videos. We then learn a multi-modal dictionary using a novel hierarchical clustering approach. We finally use the learned dictionary in order to discover and localize activity steps. We visualize this process in Figure 2 with a toy example. The output of our algorithm is temporal parsing of each video as well as an id for each semantic activity step. In other words, we not only temporally segment each video, we also relate the occurrence of same activity over multiple videos with each other. We further visualize the output in Figure 1.

Figure 2: Summary of our method. We start with a single natural language query like how to make an omelette and then we crawl the top videos returned by this query from YouTube. We learn a multi-modal dictionary composed of salient words and object proposals. Rest of the algorithm represents frames and activities in terms of the learned dictionary. For example, in the bottom figure, colors represent such atoms and both activity descriptions and frame representations are defined in terms of these atoms. (see Fig 1 for output)

Atoms: Given a large video-collection composed of visual information as well as subtitles, our algorithm starts with learning a set of visual and language atoms which are further used for representing multimodal information (Section 4). These atoms are designed to be likely to correspond to the mid-level semantic concepts like actions and objects. In order to learn language atoms, we find frequently occurring salient words among the subtitles using tf-idf like approach. Learning visual atoms is slightly trickier due to the intra-cluster variability of visual concepts. We generate object proposals and jointly-cluster them into mid-level atoms to obtain visual atoms. We develop a hierarchical clustering algorithm for this purpose (Section 5).

Discovering Activities: After learning the atoms, we represent the multi-modal information in each frame based on the occurrence statistics of the atoms. Given the multi-modal representation of each frame, we discover set of temporal clusters occurring over multiple videos using a non-parametric Bayesian method (Section 6). We expect these clusters to correspond to the activity steps which construct the high level activities. Our empirical results confirms this as the resulting clusters significantly correlates with the semantic activity steps.

Learning Atoms
frame of the video
subtitle for frame
= feature representation of frame
if cluster has proposal of video, o.w.
activity ID of frame
Learning Activities - Beta Process HMM

binary vector for

cluster
if video has activity
= emission prob. of activity
for vid
Table 1: Notation of the Paper

4 Multi-Modal Representation with Atoms

Finding the set of activity steps over large collection of videos having large visual varieties requires us to represent the semantic information in addition to the low-level visual cues. Hence, we find our language and visual atoms by using mid-level cues like object proposals and frequent words.

Learning Visual Atoms: In order to learn visual atoms, we create a large collection of object proposals by independently generating object proposals from each frame of each video. These proposals are generated using the Constrained Parametric Min-Cut (CPMC) (Carreira and Sminchisescu, 2010) algorithm based on both appearance and motion cues. We note the proposal of frame of video as . Moreover, we drop the video index if it is clearly implied in the context.

In order to group this object proposals into mid-level visual atoms, we follow a clustering approach. Although any graph clustering approach (eg. Keysegments (Lee et al, 2011)) can be applied for this, the joint processing of a large video collection requires handling large visual variability among multiple videos. We propose a new method to jointly cluster object proposals over multiple videos in Section 5. Each cluster of object proposals correspond to a visual atom.

Learning Language Atoms: We define the language atoms as the salient words which occur more often than their ordinary rates based on the tf-idf measure. The document is defined as the concatenation of all subtitles of all frames of all videos in the collection as . Then, we follow the classical tf-idf measure and use it as where is the word we are computing the tf-idf score for, is the frequency of the word in the document , is the total number of video collections we are processing, and is the number of video collections whose subtitle include the word .

We sort words with their ”tf-idf” values and choose the top words as language atoms ( in our experiments). As an example, we show the language atoms learned for the category making scrambled egg in Figure 2

Representing Frames with Atoms: After learning the visual and language atoms, we represent each frame via the occurrence of atoms (binary histogram). Formally, the representation of the frame of the video is denoted as and computed as such that entry of the is if the subtitle of the frame has the language atom and otherwise. is also a binary vector similarly defined over visual atoms. We visualize the representation of a sample frame in the Figure 3.

Figure 3: Representation for a sample frame. Three of the object proposals of sample frame are in the visual atoms and three of the words are in the language atoms.

5 Joint Clustering over Video Collection

Given a set of object proposals generated from ”multiple videos”, simply combining them into a single collection and clustering them into atoms is not desirable for two reasons: (1) semantic concepts have large visual differences among different videos and accurately clustering them into a single atom is hard, (2) atoms should contain object proposals from multiple videos in order to semantically relate the videos. In order to satisfy these requirements, we propose a joint extension to spectral clustering. Note that the purpose of this clustering is generating atoms where each clusters represents an atom.

Figure 4: Joint proposal clustering. Here, we show the video graph and region graph. Each object proposal is linked to its two NNs from the video it belongs and two NNs from the videos it is neighbour of. Black nodes are the proposals selected as part of the cluster and the gray ones are not selected. Moreover, dashed lines are intra-video edges and solid ones are inter-video edges.

Basic Graph Clustering: Consider the set of object proposals extracted from a single video , and a pairwise similarity metric for them. We follow the single cluster graph partitioning (SCGP)(Olson et al, 2005) approach to find the dominant cluster which maximizes the intra-cluster similarity:

(1)

where

is a binary variable which is

if is included in the cluster, is the number of frames and is the number of clusters per frame. Adopting the vector form of the indicator variables as and the pairwise distance matrix as , equation (1) can be compactly written as

This can be solved by finding the dominant eigenvector of

after relaxing to (Olson et al, 2005; Perona and Freeman, 1998). Upon finding the cluster, the members of the selected cluster are removed from the collection and the same algorithm is applied to find remaining clusters.

Joint Clustering: Our extension of the SCGP into multiple videos is based on the assumption that the key objects occur in most of the videos. Hence, we re-formulate the problem by enforcing the homogeneity of the cluster over all videos.

We first create a kNN graph of the videos based on the distance between their textual descriptions. We use the

distance of the bag-of-words computed from the video description. We also create the kNN graph of object proposals in each video based on the pretrained ”fc7” features of AlexNet(Krizhevsky et al, 2012). This hierarchical graph structure is visualized in Figure 4 for 3 videos sample. After creating this graph, we impose both ”inter-video” and ”intra-video” similarity among the object proposals of each cluster. Main rationale behind this construction is having a separate notion of distance for inter-video and intra-video relations since the visual similarity decreases drastically for inter-video ones.

Given the intra-video distance matrices , the binary indicator vectors , and the inter-video distance matrices as , we define our optimization problem as;

(2)

where is the neighbours of the video in the kNN graph, is vector of ones and is the number of videos.

Although we can not use the efficient eigen-decomposition approach from (Olson et al, 2005; Perona and Freeman, 1998)

as a result of the modification, we can use Stochastic Gradient Descent as the cost function is quasi-convex when relaxed. We use the SGD with the following analytic gradient function:

(3)

where and

We iteratively use the method to find clusters, and stop after the clusters are found as the remaining object proposals were deemed not relevant to the activity. Each cluster corresponds to a visual atom for our application.

In Figure 5, we visualize some of the atoms (i.e. clusters) we learned for the query How to Hard Boil an Egg?. As apparent in the figure, the resulting atoms are highly correlated and correspond to semantic objects&concepts regardless of their significant intra-class variability.

Figure 5: Randomly selected images of four randomly selected clusters learned for How to hard boil an egg? Please note that the objects in the same cluster is not only coming from a single video but discovered over multiple videos. Hence, this stage helps in linking videos with each other. Resulting clusters are semantically accurate since they typically belong to a single semantic concept like water filling the pot.

6 Unsupervised Activity Representation

In this section, we explain our model for discovering the activity steps from a video collection given the language and visual atoms. The main idea behind this step is utilizing the repetitive nature of steps. In other words, although there are large number of videos in any chosen category, the underlying set of steps are very few. Hence, we tried to find smallest set of activities which can generate all the videos we crawl.

We note the extracted representation of the frame of video as . We model our algorithm based on activity steps and note the activity label of the frame of the video as . We do not fix the the number of activities and use a non-parametric approach.

In our model, each activity step is represented over the atoms as the likelihood of including them. In other words, each activity step is a Bernoulli distribution over the visual and language atoms as

such that entry of the is the likelihood of observing language atom in the frame of an activity . Similarly, entry of the represents the likelihood of seeing visual atom. In other words, each frame’s representation is sampled from the distribution corresponding to its activity as . As a prior over , we use its conjugate distribution – Beta distribution –.

Given the model above, we explain the generative model which links activity steps and frames in Section 6.1.

6.1 Beta Process Hidden Markov Model

For the understanding of the time-series information, Fox et al.(Fox et al, 2014)

proposed the Beta Process Hidden Markov Models (BP-HMM). In BP-HMM setting, each time-series exhibits a subset of available features. Similarly, in our setup each video exhibits a subset of activity steps.

Our model follows the construction of Fox et al.(Fox et al, 2014)

and differs in the choice of probability distributions since

(Fox et al, 2014) considers Gaussian observations whereas we adopt binary observations of atoms. In our model, each video chooses a set of activity steps through an activity step vector such that is if video has the activity step , and 0 otherwise. When the activity step vectors of all videos are concatenated, it becomes an activity step matrix such that row of the is the activity step vector . Moreover, each activity step

also has a prior probability

and a distribution parameter which is the Bernoulli distribution as we explained in the Section 6.

In this setting, the activity step parameters and follow the beta process as;

(4)

where and the are determined by the underlying Poisson process (Griffiths and Ghahramani, 2005) and the feature vector is determined as independent Bernoulli draws as . After marginalizing over the and , this distribution is shown to be equivalent to Indian Buffet Process (IBP)(Griffiths and Ghahramani, 2005). In the IBP analogy, each video is a customer and each activity step is a dish in the buffet. The first customer (video) chooses a unique dishes (activity steps). The following customer (video) chooses previously sampled dish (activity step) with probability , proportional to the number of customers () chosen the dish , and it also chooses new dishes(activity steps). Here, controls the number of selected activities in each video and promotes the activities getting shared by videos.

The above IBP construction represents the activity step discovery part of our method. In addition, we also need to model the video parsing over discovered steps. Moreover, we need to model this two steps jointly. We model the each video as an Hidden Markov Model (HMM) over the selected activity steps. Each frame has the hidden state –activity step– () and we observe the multi-modal frame representation . Since we model each activity step as a Bernoulli distribution, the emission probabilities follow the Bernoulli distribution as .

For the transition probabilities of the HMM, we do not put any constraint and simply model it as any point from a probability simplex which can be sampled by drawing a set of Gamma random variables and normalizing them

(Fox et al, 2014). For each video , a Gamma random variable is sampled for the transition between activity step and activity step if both of the activity steps are included by the video (i.e. if and are both ). After sampling these random variables, we normalize them to make transition probabilities to sum up 1. This procedure can be represented formally as

(5)

Where is the persistence parameter promoting the self state transitions a.k.a. more coherent temporal boundaries, is the element-wise product and is the transition probabilities in video from activity step to other steps. This model is also presented as a graphical model in Figure 6

Figure 6: Graphical model for BP-HMM: The left plate represent the activity steps and the right plate represent the videos. i.e. the left plate is for the activity step discovery and right plate is for parsing. See Section 6.1 for details.

6.2 Gibbs sampling for BP-HMM

We employ Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method for learning and inference of the BP-HMM. We follow the exact sampler proposed by Fox et al.

(Fox et al, 2014). It marginalize over activity likelihoods and activity assignments and samples the rest. MCMC procedure iteratively samples the conditional likelihood of activity matrix , activity parameters and transition weights . We divide the explanation of this samplers into two sections, sampling the activities through activity matrix () and activity parameters (), and sampling the HMM parameters . Marginalization over activity assignments follows the efficient dynamic programming approach.

Sampling the Activities:

Consider the binary activity inclusion matrix such that is if the video has the activity. Following the sampler of Fox et al.(Fox et al, 2014), we divide the sampling into two parts, namely, sampling the shared activities and sampling the novel activities. Sampling shared activities correspond the re-sampling of existing entries of . We simply iterate over each entry and propose a flip (i.e. if the video has the activity, we propose to flip it and not to include activity in the video). We accept or reject this proposals following the Metropolis-Hasting rule.

In order to sample the novel activities, we follow the data-driven sampler (Hughes and Sudderth, 2012). Consider the case in which we want to propose a novel activity by setting the to . In other words, we introduce a new activity ( activity) such that video includes it. In order to sample the parameters of it, we first sample a temporal window over the

video. This window is sampled by sampling the starting frame and the length of the window from a uniform distribution. Then, we sample the novel activity from

Beta distribution as;

(6)

where is the entry of , is the number of frames in the window which have the atom , and is the number of frames which do not have the atom . We use Beta distribution

because it is the conjugate prior of the

Bernoulli distribution that we use to model activities.

Sampling the HMM Parameters:

When the activities are defined via and each video selects a subset of them via (), we can compute the likelihood of each state assignment by using the dynamic programming given the transition probabilities . By using the likelihoods, we sample the state assignments .

When the states are sampled, we can use the closed-form sampler derived in (Fox et al, 2014). Fox et al.(Fox et al, 2014) shows that the transition probabilities can be sampled through a Dirichlet random variable and scaling it with a Gamma random variable as;

(7)

followed by such that

. Here, represents the number of transitions between state and state in the video , , and

are hyperparameters which we learn with cross-validation,

is if and o.w., and is the number of activities the video has chosen.

At the end of the Gibbs sampling, our algorithm ends with a set of activities each represented with respect to the discovered atoms i.e. and label of each frame among the discovered activities . can be considered as a generative distribution of each discovered activity. In other words, if we want to sample a frame from activity , we simply sample set of language and visual atoms from . We perform this sampling in order to generate a language caption for each discovered activity as explained in Section A. We also consistently visualize the results of discovery using story lines as shown in Figure 1. We assign a color code to each discovered activity and sample keyframes from 4 four different clips of same activity. We further generate a natural language description as well as display the temporal segmentation of each video as a colored timeline.

7 Experiments

In order to experiment the proposed method, we first collected a dataset (details in Section 7.1). We labelled small part of the dataset with frame-wise activity step labels and used it as an evaluation corpus. Neither the set of labels, nor the temporal boundaries are exposed to our algorithm since the set-up is completely unsupervised. We evaluate our algorithm against the several unsupervised clustering baselines and state-of-the-art algorithms from video summarization literature which are applicable.

7.1 Dataset

We use WikiHow(wik, 2015) in order to obtain the top100 queries the internet users are interested in and choose the ones which are directly related to the physical world. Resulting queries are;

How toBake Boneless Skinless Chicken, Make Jello Shots, Cook Steak, Bake Chicken Breast, Hard Boil an Egg, Make Yogurt, Make a Milkshake, Make Beef Jerky, Tie a Tie, Clean a Coffee Maker, Make Scrambled Eggs, Broil Steak, Cook an Omelet, Make Ice Cream, Make Pancakes, Remove Gum from Clothes, Unclog a Bathtub Drain

For each of the queries, we crawled YouTube and got the top 100 videos. We also downloaded the English subtitles if they exist. We further randomly choose 5 videos out of 100 per query. Although the choice was random, we discarded outlier videos at this stage and re-sampled without replacement to have 5 inlier evaluation video per query. Other than outlier removal, no human super vision is used to choose evaluation videos. Hence, we have total of 125 evaluation videos and 2375 unlabelled videos.

For each evaluation video, we asked an independent labeler to label them. The dataset is labeled by 5 independent labelers each annotating 5 categories. We asked labelers to label start and end frame of each activity step as well as the name of the step. We simply asked them the question What are the activity steps and where does each of starts and end?. All labelers are shown 5 wikiHow(wik, 2015) video recipes with detailed steps before starting the annotation process as a baseline.

7.1.1 Outlier Video Removal

The video collection we obtain without any expert intervention might have outliers; since, our queries are typical daily activities and there are many cartoons, funny videos, and music videos about them. Hence, we have an automatic filtering stage. The key-idea behind the filtering algorithm is the fact that instructional videos have a distinguishable text descriptions when compared with outliers. To exploit this, we use a clustering algorithm to find the large cluster of instructional videos with no outlier. Given a large video collection, we use the graph we explain in Section 5 and compute the dominant video cluster by using the Single Cluster Graph Partitioning (Olson et al, 2005) and discards the remaining videos as outlier. We represent each video as a bag-of-words of their textual description. In Figure 7

, we visualize some of the discarded videos. Although our algorithm have false positives while detecting outliers, we always have enough number of videos (minimum 50) after the outlier detection thanks to the large-scale dataset.

Figure 7: Sample videos which our algorithm discards as an outlier for various queries. A toy milkshake, a milkshake charm, a funny video about How to NOT make smoothie, a video about the danger of a fire, a cartoon video, a neck-tie video erroneously labeled as bow-tie, a song, and a lamb cooking mislabeled as chicken.

7.2 Qualitative Results

After independently running our algorithm on all categories, we discover activity steps and parse the videos according to discovered steps. We visualize some of these categories qualitatively in Figure 8 with the temporal parsing of evaluation videos as well as the ground truth parsing.

To visualize the content of each activity step, we display key-frames from different videos. We also train a 3rd order Markov language model(Shannon, 2001) by using the subtitles. Moreover, we generate a caption for each activity step by sampling this model conditioned on the . We explain the details of this process in the appendix.

(a) How to make an omelet?
(b) How to make a milkshake?
Figure 8: Video storylines for queries How to make an omelet? and How to make a milkshake? Temporal segmentation of the videos and ground truth segmentation. We also color code the activity steps we discovered and visualize their key-frames and the automatically generated captions. Best viewed in color.

As shown in the Figures 7(a)&7(b), resulting steps are semantically meaningful. Moreover, the language captions are also quite informative hence we can conclude that there is enough language context within the subtitles in order to detect activities. On the other hand, some of the activity steps always occur together and our algorithm merges them into a single step while promoting sparsity.

7.3 Quantitative Results

We compare our algorithm with the following baselines.

Low-level features (LLF): In order to experiment the effect of learned atoms, we compare with low-level features. As features, we use the state-of-the-art Fisher vector representation of HOG, HOF and MBH features (Jiang et al, 2014).

Single modality: To experiment the effect of multi-modal approach, we compare with single modality approach by only using the atoms of a single modality.

Hidden Markov Model (HMM): To experiment the effect of joint generaive model, we compare our algorithm with an HMM. We use the Baum-Welch (Rabiner, 1989) with cross-validation.

Kernel Temporal Segmentation(Potapov et al, 2014): Kernel Temporal Segmentation (KTS) proposed by Potapov et al.(Potapov et al, 2014) can detect the temporal boundaries of the events/activities in the video from a time series data without any supervision. It enforces a local similarity of each resultant segment.

Figure 9: values for all categories, for all competing algorithms. Results suggest that our algorithm is outperforming all other baselines. It also suggests that the visual information is contributing more than language for temporal intersection over union. This is rather expected since people tend to talk about things they did and will do; hence, language is expected to have low localization accuracy.
Figure 10: values for all categories, for all competing algorithms. Results suggest that our algorithm is outperforming all other baselines in most of the cases. The failure cases included recipes like How to tie a tie?

which is rather expected since a video about tying a tie only includes a tie in the scene which is not informative enough to distinguish steps. The results also suggest that language contributes more than visual information for average precision, which is also rather expected since same step has very high visual variance and generally referred by using same or similar words.

Given parsing results and the ground truth, we evaluate both the quality of temporal segmentation and the activity step discovery. We base our evaluation on two widely used metrics; intersection over union () and mean average precision(). measures the quality of temporal segmentation and it is defined as; where is the number of segments, is ground truth segment and is the detected segment. is defined per activity step and can be computed based on a precision-recall curve (Jiang et al, 2014). In order to adopt these metrics into unsupervised setting, we use cluster similarity measure(csm)(Liao, 2005) which enables us to use any metric in unsupervised setting. It chooses a matching of ground truth labels with predicted labels by searching over all matching and choosing the ones giving highest score. We use and

as evaluation metrics.

Figure 11: Qualitative results for parsing ‘Travel San Francisco’ category. The results suggest that our algorithm can generalize categories beyond instructional videos. For example, travel videos can also be parsed using our method.
Accuracy of the temporal parsing.

We compute, and plot in Figure9, the values for all competing algorithms and all categories. We also average over the categories and summarize the results in the Table 2. As the Figure 9 and Table 2 suggests, proposed method consistently outperforms the competing algorithms and its variations. One interesting observation is the importance of both modalities as a result of dramatic difference between the accuracy of our method and its single modal versions.

Moreover, the difference between our method and HMM is also significant. We believe this is due to the ill-posed definition of activities in HMM since the granularity of the activity steps is subjective. On the other hand, our method starts with the well-defined definition of finding set of steps which generate the entire collection. Hence, our algorithm do not suffer from granularity problem.

KTS (Potapov et al, 2014) KTS(Potapov et al, 2014) HMM HMM Ours Ours Ours Our
w/ LLF w/ Sem w/ LLF w/Sem w/ LLF w/o Vis w/o Lang full
16.80 28.01 30.84 37.69 33.16 36.50 29.91 52.36
n/a n/a 9.35 32.30 11.33 30.50 19.50 44.09
Table 2: Average of and over recipes.The results suggest that our algorithm outperforms all baselines. The results also suggest that both of the modalities as well as semantic representations of visual information are all required for successful parsing of video collections.
Coherency and accuracy of activity step discovery.

Although successfully measures the accuracy of the temporal segmentation, it can not measure the quality of discovered activities. In other words, we also need to evaluate the consistency of the activity steps detected over multiple videos. For this, we use unsupervised version of mean average precision . We plot the values per category in Figure 10 and their average over categories in Table 2. As the Figure 10 and the Table 2 suggests, our proposed method outperforms all competing algorithms. One interesting observation is the significant difference between semantic and low-level features. Hence, the mid-level features are key for linking multiple videos.

Semantics of activity steps.

In order to evaluate the role of semantics, we performed a subjective analysis. We concatenated the activity step labels in the grount-truth into a label collection. Then, we ask non-expert users to choose a label for each discovered activity for each algorithm. In other words, we replaced the maximization step with subjective labels. We designed our experiments in a way that each clip received annotations from 5 different users. We randomized the ordering of videos and algorithms during the subjective evaluation. Using the labels provided by subjects, we compute the mean average precision .

HMM HMM Ours Ours Ours Our
w/ LLF w/Sem w/ LLF w/o Vis w/o Lang full
6.44 24.83 7.28 28.93 14.83 39.01
Table 3: Semantic mean-average-precision . The results suggest that our algorithm outperforms all baselines. The results also suggest that both of the modalities are required for accurate parsing for video collections.

Both and metrics suggest that our method consistently outperforms the competing ones. There is only one recipe in which our method is outperformed by our based line of no visual information. This is mostly because of the specific nature of the recipe How to tie a tie?. In such videos the notion of object is not useful since all videos use a single object -tie-.

The importance of each modality.

As shown in Figure 9 and 10, performance significantly drops when any of the modalities is ignored consistently in all categories. Hence, the joint usage is necessary. One interesting observation is the fact that using only language information performed slightly better than using only visual information. We believe this is due to the less intra-class variance in the language modality (i.e. people use same words for same activities). However, it lacks many details(less complete) and more noisy than visual information. Hence these results validate the complementary nature of language and vision.

Generalization to generic structured videos.

We experiment the applicability of our method beyond How-To videos by evaluating it on non-How-To categories. In Figure 11, we visualize the results for the videos retrieved using the query “Travel San Francisco”. The resulting clusters follow semantically meaningful activities and landmarks and show the applicability of our method beyond How-To queries. It is interesting to note that Chinatown and Clement St ended up in the same cluster. Considering the fact that Clement St is known for its Chinese food, this suggests that the discovered clusters are semantically meaningful.

Noise in the subtitles.

We experiment and analyze the robustness to noise in subtitles. Handling noisy subtitles is an important requirement since the scale of large-video collections makes it intractable to transcribe all instructional videos. One study suggest that it would take 374k human-year effort to transcribe all youtube videos. Hence, we expect to have combination of automatic speech recognition(ASR) generated subtitles with user uploaded ones as an input to any unsupervised parsing algorithm.

We study the effect of noise, introduced by ASR, by evaluating our algorithm on three different video corpus. First, we only use the videos with user uploaded subtitles. Second, we only use the videos with ASR generated subtitles. Third, we use the entire dataset as union of first two. The results are summarized in Table 4. Results indicates that noise-free subtitle improves the accuracy as expected. Moreover, the difference between the results obtained with full corpus and user uploaded subtitles corpus is very small when compared with ASR only corpus. Hence, our algorithm can fuse information from noisy and noise-free examples in order to compensate for errors in the ASR.

ASR only
User uploaded only
Combination
Table 4: Average of and over recipes with and without user uploaded subtitles. The results show that noise in the subtitles has an effect in the parsing accuracy. The results also indicate that our algorithm shows robustness to the noise since our accuracy results are comparable to the version using only user uploaded subtitles.

8 Grounding into Robotic Instructions

In this section, we demonstrate how we can apply our algorithm to the task of grounding recipe steps into robotic actions.


Figure 12: Demonstration on robotic grounding. We considered two queries by the user: How to make a ramen? and How to make an affogato?. Given the result by our video parsing system, we find the grounded instruction for each recipe step. Top row shows the results as a storyline from our video parser, and the bottom row shows the robotic simulator and an actual robotic demonstration respectively. During this demonstration, we manually label each object category and fully automate rest of the task. In order to simulate/and implement the resulting steps on robots, we simply used the publicly available simulator/source code distributed by Tell Me Dave (Misra et al, 2014, 2015)

One of the most important applications of our algorithms is in robotics. In future, robots will need to perform many tasks upon user’s requests. We envision that the robots can use our video parser to first download a large video collection for a task and then parse it. For example, if a user asks to the robot Please make ramen., the robot can download all videos returned from the query How to make a ramen.. Robot can further parse the scene using any of the available RGB-D/RGB/Point Cloud segmentation algorithms (Koppula et al, 2011; Ren et al, 2012; Armeni et al, 2016). Robot can use the resulting segmentation in order to find the most similar recipe simply using the object categories that we output.

In order to demonstrate this application, we use a state of the art language grounding algorithm (Misra et al, 2014, 2015) which converts the generated descriptions into robot actions based on the environment. Tell Me Dave algorithm of Misra et al (Misra et al, 2014, 2015) uses a semantic simulator which encodes the common sense knowledge about the physical world. It takes the tuple of language, instructions and the environment as an input and outputs a series of robot actions to perform the task. In order to learn the transformation, it uses a large-scale game log of language instruction, environment and robot action tuples, and models them in terms of a graphical model. The environment is defined in terms of objects and their 3D positions, language is series of free-form English sentences describing each step and actions are low-level robot commands.

In our experimental setup, we choose two basic activites that Tell Me Dave can simulate; namely, How to make a ramen? and How to make an affogato?. We also chose a random environment for each query from Tell Me Dave environment dataset. We directly feed aforementioned how-to queries into YouTube and parse the resulting video collections. The resulting storylines are visualized in Figure 12.

In order to complete the loop until low-level robot commands, we then manually labelled the object categories our algorithm discovered. For example, if the category we discovered is mostly images of eggs, we labelled this category as egg. 222This step can be automated using any object recognition algorithm (Russakovsky et al, 2015). Using these labels, our algorithm chose the video whose objects is a subset to the environment our robot lives in to make sure all objects of the recipe are accessible by the robot. Finally, we feed the environment and generated captions into the Tell Me Dave algorithm to obtain the physical plan robot needs to execute to perform each of the activity. We visualize each plan and the simulation in the Figure 12.

Our results are shown in the Figure 12, demonstrating that our approach can be used for robotics applications with limited supervision. There were some errors in translation of video storyline steps to actual grounded steps. Example errors include turning on both of the knobs of the stove other than the single one. However, the resulting plans were still feasible in a way they can accomplish the required high-level task.

While a larger analysis and robotic experiments are outside the scope of this paper, with this demonstration we believe that our proposed method shows a feasible direction for robotics.

9 Conclusions

In this paper, we captured the underlying structure of human communication by jointly considering visual and language cues. We experimentally validate that given a large-video collection having subtitles, it is possible to discover activities without any supervision over activities or objects. Experimental evaluation also suggests the available noisy and incomplete information is powerful enough to not only discover activities but also describe them. We also demonstrated that the resulting discovered recipes are useful in robotics scenarios.

So; “is it possible to understand large-video collections without any supervision?”. Given video and speech information, the storylines we generate successfully summarize the large video collection. This compact representation of an hundreds of videos is expected to be useful in designing user interfaces which users interact with instructional videos. We believe this is an important step in the direction of future video webpages. Yet another very important question is “can machines understand large-video collections?”. Clearly, we needed a small amount of manual information and even used a method which is trained with human supervision in our robotic demonstration. Hence, it is too early to claim a success for machines watching large-collection of videos. On the other hand, the results are very promising and we believe algorithms which can convert a free-form input query into robot trajectories are a possible in near future. We also believe our algorithm is an important step in this ambitious target.

Appendix A Generation of Language Description

In this section, we explain how we generated the text description for the activity steps we discovered. We included these descriptions in Figure 811&12 as well as in the supplementary videos.

In order to generate the descriptions, we simply used a Markov text generator. We collected all subtitles of all videos we included in our dataset. After combining them, we trained a order Markov model by using the subtitles we downloaded. Main purpose of this training is learning the context dependent language model. Although this step can be accomplished by various of methods in the NLP literature, we choose Markov language model because of its simplicity. Indeed, this model is learned purely for visualization purposes and neither the activity step discovery nor the parsing algorithm uses this model.

After the model is learned, we need to generate a text description for each discovered activity. Since each discovered activity is represented as Bernoulli random variable, we have likelihood for each language atom. Our description generation strategy is sampling a large collection of descriptions and ranking them for their closeness to the discovered activities. We compute this closeness with the parameters of the Bernoulli random variable. Formally, given large-set of sampled descriptions , we rank them using the weights of the Bernoulli random variable as;

Here, is an indicator function, is the word of description, is the word and is the entry of the activity description. We simply choose the description having largest rank.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Jay Hack for developing ModalDB and Bart Selman and Ashesh Jain for useful comments and discussions.

References

  • wik (2015) (2015) Wikihow-how to do anything. http://www.wikihow.com
  • Armeni et al (2016) Armeni I, Sener O, Zamir A, Savarese S (2016) 3d semantic parsing of large-scale indoor spaces. In: CVPR
  • Barbu et al (2012) Barbu A, Bridge A, Burchill Z, Coroian D, Dickinson S, Fidler S, Michaux A, Mussman S, Narayanaswamy S, Salvi D, et al (2012) Video in sentences out. arXiv preprint arXiv:12042742
  • Barnard et al (2003) Barnard K, Duygulu P, Forsyth D, De Freitas N, Blei DM, Jordan MI (2003) Matching words and pictures. JMLR 3:1107–1135
  • Beetz et al (2011) Beetz M, Klank U, Kresse I, Maldonado A, Mosenlechner L, Pangercic D, Ruhr T, Tenorth M (2011) Robotic roommates making pancakes. In: Humanoids
  • Bojanowski et al (2014) Bojanowski P, Lajugie R, Bach F, Laptev I, Ponce J, Schmid C, Sivic J (2014) Weakly supervised action labeling in videos under ordering constraints. In: ECCV
  • Bollini et al (2011) Bollini M, Barry J, Rus D (2011) Bakebot: Baking cookies with the pr2. In: The PR2 Workshop, IROS
  • Carreira and Sminchisescu (2010) Carreira J, Sminchisescu C (2010) Constrained parametric min-cuts for automatic object segmentation. In: CVPR
  • Das et al (2013) Das P, Xu C, Doell RF, Corso JJ (2013) A thousand frames in just a few words: Lingual description of videos through latent topics and sparse object stitching. In: CVPR
  • Duchenne et al (2009) Duchenne O, Laptev I, Sivic J, Bash F, Ponce J (2009) Automatic annotation of human actions in video. In: ICCV
  • Efros et al (2003) Efros AA, Berg AC, Mori G, Malik J (2003) Recognizing action at a distance. In: ICCV
  • Farhadi et al (2010) Farhadi A, Hejrati M, Sadeghi MA, Young P, Rashtchian C, Hockenmaier J, Forsyth D (2010) Every picture tells a story: Generating sentences from images
  • Fidler et al (2013) Fidler S, Sharma A, Urtasun R (2013) A sentence is worth a thousand pixels. In: CVPR, IEEE
  • Fox et al (2014) Fox E, Hughes M, Sudderth E, Jordan M (2014) Joint modeling of multiple related time series via the beta process with application to motion capture segmentation. Annals of Applied Statistics 8(3):1281–1313
  • Google (2016) Google (2016) Google trends. https://www.google.com/trends/, accessed: 2016-04-23
  • Grabler et al (2009) Grabler F, Agrawala M, Li W, Dontcheva M, Igarashi T (2009) Generating photo manipulation tutorials by demonstration. TOG 28(3):66
  • Griffiths and Ghahramani (2005) Griffiths T, Ghahramani Z (2005) Infinite latent feature models and the indian buffet process. Gatsby Unit
  • Gupta et al (2009) Gupta A, Srinivasan P, Shi J, Davis LS (2009) Understanding videos, constructing plots learning a visually grounded storyline model from annotated videos. In: CVPR
  • Hoai et al (2011) Hoai M, Lan ZZ, De la Torre F (2011) Joint segmentation and classification of human actions in video. In: CVPR
  • Hughes and Sudderth (2012) Hughes MC, Sudderth EB (2012) Nonparametric discovery of activity patterns from video collections. In: CVPR Workshop, pp 25–32
  • Jain et al (2013) Jain M, Jegou H, Bouthemy P (2013) Better exploiting motion for better action recognition. In: CVPR
  • Jain et al (2014) Jain M, van Gemert J, Snoek CG (2014) University of amsterdam at thumos challenge 2014. ECCV International Workshop and Competition on Action Recognition with a Large Number of Classes
  • Jiang et al (2014) Jiang YG, Liu J, Roshan Zamir A, Toderici G, Laptev I, Shah M, Sukthankar R (2014) THUMOS challenge: Action recognition with a large number of classes. http://crcv.ucf.edu/THUMOS14/
  • Karpathy and Fei-Fei (2014) Karpathy A, Fei-Fei L (2014) Deep Visual-Semantic Alignments for Generating Image Descriptions. ArXiv e-prints 1412.2306
  • Khosla et al (2013) Khosla A, Hamid R, Lin CJ, Sundaresan N (2013) Large-scale video summarization using web-image priors. In: CVPR
  • Kim and Xing (2014) Kim G, Xing EP (2014) Reconstructing storyline graphs for image recommendation from web community photos. In: CVPR
  • Kim et al (2014) Kim G, Sigal L, Xing EP (2014) Joint summarization of large-scale collections of web images and videos for storyline reconstruction. In: CVPR
  • Kiros et al (2014) Kiros R, Salakhutdinov R, Zemel R (2014) Multimodal neural language models. In: ICML
  • Kong et al (2014) Kong C, Lin D, Bansal M, Urtasun R, Fidler S (2014) What are you talking about? text-to-image coreference. In: CVPR
  • Koppula et al (2011) Koppula HS, Anand A, Joachims T, Saxena A (2011) Semantic labeling of 3d point clouds for indoor scenes. In: Shawe-Taylor J, Zemel RS, Bartlett PL, Pereira F, Weinberger KQ (eds) Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 24, Curran Associates, Inc., pp 244–252, URL http://papers.nips.cc/paper/4226-semantic-labeling-of-3d-point-clouds-for-indoor-scenes.pdf
  • Krizhevsky et al (2012)

    Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Hinton GE (2012) Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In: NIPS

  • Kuehne et al (2011) Kuehne H, Jhuang H, Garrote E, Poggio T, Serre T (2011) Hmdb: a large video database for human motion recognition. In: ICCV
  • Lan et al (2014a) Lan T, Chen L, Deng Z, Zhou GT, Mori G (2014a) Learning action primitives for multi-level video event understanding. In: Workshop on Visual Surveillance and Re-Identification
  • Lan et al (2014b) Lan T, Chen TC, Savarese S (2014b) A hierarchical representation for future action prediction. In: ECCV
  • Laptev and Pérez (2007) Laptev I, Pérez P (2007) Retrieving actions in movies. In: ICCV
  • Laptev et al (2008) Laptev I, Marszalek M, Schmid C, Rozenfeld B (2008) Learning realistic human actions from movies. In: CVPR
  • Lee et al (2011) Lee YJ, Kim J, Grauman K (2011) Key-segments for video object segmentation. In: ICCV
  • Lee et al (2012) Lee YJ, Ghosh J, Grauman K (2012) Discovering important people and objects for egocentric video summarization. In: CVPR
  • Liao (2005)

    Liao TW (2005) Clustering of time series data—a survey. Pattern recognition 38(11):1857–1874

  • Lu and Grauman (2013) Lu Z, Grauman K (2013) Story-driven summarization for egocentric video. In: CVPR
  • Malmaud et al (2014) Malmaud J, Wagner EJ, Chang N, Murphy K (2014) Cooking with semantics. ACL
  • Malmaud et al (2015) Malmaud J, Huang J, Rathod V, Johnston N, Rabinovich A, Murphy K (2015) What’s Cookin’? Interpreting Cooking Videos using Text, Speech and Vision. ArXiv e-prints 1503.01558
  • Misra et al (2014) Misra DK, Sung J, Lee K, Saxena A (2014) Tell me dave: Context-sensitive grounding of natural language to mobile manipulation instructions. In: In RSS, Citeseer
  • Misra et al (2015)

    Misra DK, Tao K, Liang P, Saxena A (2015) Environment-driven lexicon induction for high-level instructions. ACL

  • Motwani and Mooney (2012) Motwani TS, Mooney RJ (2012) Improving video activity recognition using object recognition and text mining. In: ECAI
  • Niebles et al (2010) Niebles JC, Chen CW, Fei-Fei L (2010) Modeling temporal structure of decomposable motion segments for activity classification. In: ECCV
  • Olson et al (2005) Olson E, Walter M, Teller SJ, Leonard JJ (2005) Single-cluster spectral graph partitioning for robotics applications. In: RSS
  • Oneata et al (2014) Oneata D, Verbeek J, Schmid C (2014) The lear submission at thumos 2014. ECCV International Workshop and Competition on Action Recognition with a Large Number of Classes
  • Ordonez et al (2011) Ordonez V, Kulkarni G, Berg TL (2011) Im2text: Describing images using 1 million captioned photographs. In: NIPS
  • Perona and Freeman (1998) Perona P, Freeman W (1998) A factorization approach to grouping. In: ECCV
  • Pirsiavash and Ramanan (2014) Pirsiavash H, Ramanan D (2014) Parsing videos of actions with segmental grammars. In: CVPR
  • Potapov et al (2014) Potapov D, Douze M, Harchaoui Z, Schmid C (2014) Category-specific video summarization. In: ECCV
  • Rabiner (1989) Rabiner LR (1989) A tutorial on hidden markov models and selected applications in speech recognition. In: PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, pp 257–286
  • Ren et al (2012) Ren X, Bo L, Fox D (2012) Rgb-(d) scene labeling: Features and algorithms. In: CVPR
  • Rui et al (2000) Rui Y, Gupta A, Acero A (2000) Automatically extracting highlights for tv baseball programs. In: ACM MM
  • Russakovsky et al (2015) Russakovsky O, Deng J, Su H, Krause J, Satheesh S, Ma S, Huang Z, Karpathy A, Khosla A, Bernstein M, et al (2015) Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge. International Journal of Computer Vision 115(3):211–252
  • Ryoo and Aggarwal (2009) Ryoo M, Aggarwal J (2009) Spatio-temporal relationship match: Video structure comparison for recognition of complex human activities. In: ICCV
  • Shannon (2001) Shannon CE (2001) A mathematical theory of communication. ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review 5(1):3–55
  • Socher and Fei-Fei (2010) Socher R, Fei-Fei L (2010) Connecting modalities: Semi-supervised segmentation and annotation of images using unaligned text corpora. In: CVPR, pp 966–973
  • Socher et al (2014) Socher R, Karpathy A, Le QV, Manning CD, Ng AY (2014) Grounded compositional semantics for finding and describing images with sentences. TACL 2:207–218
  • Soomro et al (2012) Soomro K, Roshan Zamir A, Shah M (2012) UCF101: A dataset of 101 human actions classes from videos in the wild. In: CRCV-TR-12-01
  • Sun and Nevatia (2014) Sun C, Nevatia R (2014) Discover: Discovering important segments for classification of video events and recounting. In: CVPR
  • Tenorth et al (2010) Tenorth M, Nyga D, Beetz M (2010) Understanding and executing instructions for everyday manipulation tasks from the world wide web. In: ICRA
  • Truong and Venkatesh (2007) Truong BT, Venkatesh S (2007) Video abstraction: A systematic review and classification. ACM TOMM 3(1):3
  • Wikipedia (2004) Wikipedia (2004) Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. URL http://en.wikipedia.org/, [Online; accessed 22-April-2016]
  • Yao and Fei-Fei (2010) Yao B, Fei-Fei L (2010) Modeling mutual context of object and human pose in human-object interaction activities. In: CVPR
  • Yu and Siskind (2013) Yu H, Siskind JM (2013) Grounded language learning from video described with sentences. In: ACL
  • Zitnick and Parikh (2013) Zitnick CL, Parikh D (2013) Bringing semantics into focus using visual abstraction. In: CVPR
  • Zitnick et al (2013) Zitnick CL, Parikh D, Vanderwende L (2013) Learning the visual interpretation of sentences. In: CVPR