Where Does It Exist: Spatio-Temporal Video Grounding for Multi-Form Sentences

01/19/2020 ∙ by Zhu Zhang, et al. ∙ Zhejiang University 0

In this paper, we consider a novel task, Spatio-Temporal Video Grounding for Multi-Form Sentences (STVG). Given an untrimmed video and a declarative/interrogative sentence depicting an object, STVG aims to localize the spatiotemporal tube of the queried object. STVG has two challenging settings: (1) We need to localize spatio-temporal object tubes from untrimmed videos, where the object may only exist in a very small segment of the video; (2) We deal with multi-form sentences, including the declarative sentences with explicit objects and interrogative sentences with unknown objects. Existing methods cannot tackle the STVG task due to the ineffective tube pre-generation and the lack of object relationship modeling. Thus, we then propose a novel Spatio-Temporal Graph Reasoning Network (STGRN) for this task. First, we build a spatio-temporal region graph to capture the region relationships with temporal object dynamics, which involves the implicit and explicit spatial subgraphs in each frame and the temporal dynamic subgraph across frames. We then incorporate textual clues into the graph and develop the multi-step cross-modal graph reasoning. Next, we introduce a spatio-temporal localizer with a dynamic selection method to directly retrieve the spatiotemporal tubes without tube pre-generation. Moreover, we contribute a large-scale video grounding dataset VidSTG based on video relation dataset VidOR. The extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.

READ FULL TEXT VIEW PDF
POST COMMENT

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Authors

page 1

page 2

page 3

page 4

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

Grounding natural language in visual contents is a fundamental and vital task in the visual-language understanding field. Visual grounding aims to localize the object described by the given referring expression in an image, which has attracted much attention and made great progress [14, 23, 6, 40, 37]. Recently, researchers begin to explore video grounding, including temporal grounding and spatio-temporal grounding. Temporal sentence grounding [8, 11, 46, 35] determines the temporal boundaries of events corresponding to the given sentence, but does not localize the spatio-temporal tube (i.e., a sequence of bounding boxes) of the described object. Further, spatio-temporal grounding is to retrieve the object tubes according to textual descriptions, but existing strategies [48, 1, 36, 4] can only be applied to restricted scenarios, e.g. grounding in a frame of the video [48, 1] or grounding in trimmed videos [36, 4]. Moreover, due to the lack of bounding box annotations, researchers [48, 4] can only adopt a weakly-supervised setting, leading to suboptimal performance.

Figure 1: An example of STVG for multi-form sentences.

To break through above restrictions, we propose a novel task, Spatio-Temporal Video Grounding for Multi-Form Sentences (STVG). Concretely, as illustrated in Figure 1, given an untrimmed video and a declarative/interrogative sentence depicting an object, STVG aims to localize the spatio-temporal tube of the queried object.

Compared with previous video grounding [48, 1, 36, 4], STVG has two novel and challenging points. First, we localize spatio-temporal object tubes from untrimmed videos. The objects may exist in a very small segment of the video and be hard to distinguish. And the sentences may only describe a short-term state of the queried object, e.g. the action ”catching a toy” of the boy in Figure 1. So it is crucial to determine the temporal boundaries of object tubes by sufficient cross-modal understanding. Secondly, STVG deals with multi-form sentences, that it, not only grounds the conventional declarative sentences with explicit objects, but also localizes the interrogative sentences with unknown objects, for example, the sentence ”What is caught by the squatting boy on the floor?” in Figure 1. Due to the lack of the explicit characteristics of objects (e.g. the class ”toy” and visual appearance ”yellow”), grounding for interrogative sentences can only depend on relationships between the unknown object and other objects (e.g. the action relation ”caught by the squatting boy” and spatial relation ”on the floor”). Thus, sufficient relationship construction and cross-modal relation reasoning are crucial for the STVG task.

Existing video grounding methods [36, 4] often extract a set of spatio-temporal tubes from trimmed videos and then identify the target tube that matches the sentence. However, this framework may be unsuitable for STVG. On the one hand, the performance of this framework is heavily dependent on the quality of tube candidates. But it is difficult to pre-generate high-quality tubes without textual clues, since the sentences may describe a short-term state of objects in a very small segment, but the existing tube pre-generation framework [36, 4] can only produce the complete object tubes from trimmed videos. On the other hand, these methods only consider single tube modeling and ignore the relationships between objects. However, object relations are vital clues for the STVG task, especially for interrogative sentences that may only offer the interactions of the unknown objects with other objects. Thus, these approaches cannot deal with the complicated grounding of STVG.

To tackle above problems, we propose a novel Spatio-Temporal Graph Reasoning Network (STGRN) to capture region relationships with temporal object dynamics and directly localize the spatio-temporal tubes without tube pre-generation. Specifically, we first parse the video into a spatio-temporal region graph. Existing visual graph modeling approaches [39, 19] often build the spatial graph in an image, which cannot utilize the temporal dynamics information in videos to distinguish the subtle differences of object actions, e.g. distinguish ”open the door” and ”close the door”. Different from them, our spatio-temporal region graph not only involves the implicit and explicit spatial subgraphs in each frame, but also includes a temporal dynamic subgraph across frames. The spatial subgraphs can capture the region-level relationships by implicit or explicit semantic interactions, and the temporal subgraph can incorporate the dynamics and transformation of objects across frames to further improve the relation understanding. Next, we fuse the textual clues into this spatio-temporal graph as the guidance, and develop the multi-step cross-modal graph reasoning. The multi-step process can support the multi-order relation modeling like ”a man hug a baby wearing a red hat”. After it, we introduce a spatio-temporal localizer to directly retrieve the spatio-temporal object tubes from the region level. Concretely, we first employ a temporal localizer to determine the temporal boundaries of the tube, and then apply a spatial localizer with a dynamic selection method to ground the object in each frame and generate a smooth tube.

To facilitate this STVG task, we contribute a large-scale video grounding dataset VidSTG by adding the multi-form sentence annotations into video relation dataset VidOR.

Our main contributions can be summarized as follows:

  • We propose a novel task STVG to explore the spatio-temporal video grounding for multi-form sentences.

  • We develop a novel STGRN to tackle this STVG task, which builds a spatio-temporal graph to capture the region relationships with temporal object dynamics, and employs a spatio-temporal localizer to directly retrieve the spatio-temporal tubes without tube pre-generation.

  • We contribute a large-scale video grounding dataset VidSTG as the benchmark of the STVG task.

  • The extensive experiments show the effectiveness of our proposed STGRN method.

Figure 2: The Overall Architecture of the Spatio-Temporal Graph Reasoning Network (STGRN). We first extract the region features and learn the query representation. Next, we apply a spatio-temporal graph encoder to develop the multi-step cross-modal graph reasoning. After it, a spatio-temporal localizer with spatio-temporal convolution layers directly retrieves the tubes from the region level.

2 Related Work

2.1 Temporal Localization via Natural Language

Temporal natural language localization is to detect the video clip depicting the given sentence. Early approaches [11, 8, 12, 21, 22] are mainly based on the sliding window framework, which first samples abundant candidate clips and then ranks them. Recently, people begin to develop holistic and cross-modal methods [44, 2, 3, 33, 47, 35] to solve this problem. Chen, Zhang and Xu et al. [2, 3, 47, 35] build frame-by-word interactions from visual and textual contents to aggregate the matching clues. Zhang et al. [44] deal with the structural and semantic misalignment challenges by an explicitly structured graph. Wang et al. [33]

propose a reinforcement learning framework to adaptively observe frame sequences and associate video contents with sentences. And Mithun et al. 

[24] utilize the attention scores to align videos and sentences in the weakly-supervised setting. Although these methods have achieved promising performance, they still remain in the temporal grounding. We further explore spatio-temporal grounding in this paper.

2.2 Object Grounding in Images/Videos

Visual grounding [14, 23, 34, 41, 25, 42, 6, 49, 13, 40, 45, 37, 38] aims to localize the visual object described by the given referring expression. Early methods [14, 23, 34, 41, 25, 42] often extract object features by CNN, model the language expression through RNN and learn the object-language matching. Some recent approaches [40, 13] decompose the expression into multiple components and calculate matching scores of each module. And Deng and Zhuang et al. [6, 49] apply the co-attention mechanism to build cross-modal interactions. Further, Yang et al. [38, 37] explore the relationships between objects to improve the accuracy. As for video grounding, existing works [48, 1, 36, 4, 36, 4] can only be applied to restricted scenarios. Zhou and Balajee et al. [48, 1] only ground natural language in a frame of the video. With a sequence of transcriptions and temporal alignment video clips, Huang and Shi et al. [15, 31] ground nouns or pronouns in specific frames by the weakly-supervised MIL methods. And Chen and Yamaguchi et al. [36, 4] localize spatio-temporal object tubes from trimmed videos, but cannot directly deal with raw video streams. In this paper, we propose a novel STVG task to further explore the spatio-temporal video grounding for multi-form sentences.

3 The Proposed Method

Given a video and a sentence depicting an object, STVG is to retrieve its spatio-temporal tube. Figure 1 illustrates the overall framework of our Spatio-Temporal Graph Reasoning Network (STGRN), including the basic video and text encoders, spatio-temporal graph encoder and spatio-temporal localizer. Next, we introduce the details of these modules.

3.1 Video and Text Encoder

We first apply a pre-trained Faster R-CNN [28] to extract a set of regions for each frame, where a video contains frames and the -th frame corresponds to regions denoted by . A region is associated with its visual feature

and bounding box vector

, where are the normalized coordinates of the center point and are the normalized width and height. Besides, we obtain the frame features , i.e., the visual feature of the entire frame from Faster R-CNN.

For the sentence with words, we first input the word embeddings into a bi-directional GRU [5] to learn the word semantic features , where is the concatenation of the forward and backward hidden states of step . As the STVG grounds objects described in the declarative or interrogative sentences, we need to extract the query representation from language context. First, we select the entity feature from , which represents the queried object, for example, for ”boy” in Figure 2. Note that for interrogative sentences, the feature of ”who” or ”what” is chosen as the entity feature. Next, an attention method aggregates the textual clues from language context by

(1)

where and are projection matrices, is the entity-aware feature and is the query representation.

3.2 Spatio-Temporal Graph Encoder

Our STVG task requires to capture the object relationships and develop the cross-modal understanding for semantically sentence grounding, especially for interrogative sentences that may only offer the interaction information of the unknown object with other objects. Thus, we build a spatio-temporal region encoder with spatio-temporal convolution layers to capture the region relationships with temporal object dynamics and support the multi-step cross-modal graph reasoning.

3.2.1 Graph Construction

We first parse the video into a spatio-temporal region graph, which involves the implicit spatial subgraph , explicit spatial subgraph in each frame and temporal dynamic subgraph across frames. Three subgraphs all treat regions as their vertexes but have different edges. Note that we add the self-loop of each vertex in each subgraph.

Implicit Spatial Graph. We regard the fully-connected region graph in each frame as the implicit spatial graph , where contains undirected and unlabeled edges in each frame (including self-loops).

Explicit Spatial Graph. We extract the region triplet to construct the explicit spatial graph, where and are the i-th and j-th regions in frame t, and is the relation predicate between them. Each triplet can be regarded as an edge from to . Thus, explicit graph construction can be formulated as a relation classification task [39, 43]. Concretely, given the feature of region , feature of region and the united feature of the union bounding box of and (also extracted by Faster R-CNN), we first transform three features via different linear leyers and then concatenate them into a classification layer to predict the relations. Similer to existing works [39, 19]

, we train such a classifier on the Visual Genome dataset 

[18], where we select top-50 frequent predicates in its training data and add an extra class for non-existent edges. We then predict the relationships between and . Eventually, the edges have 3 directions (including -to-, -to- and -to- of self-loops) and 51 types of labels (top-50 classes plus the self-loop).

Temporal Dynamic Graph. While the spatial graphs model region-region interactions, our temporal graph is to capture the dynamics and transformation of objects across frames. So we expect to connect the regions containing the same object in different frames and then learn more expressive and discriminative object features. For the frame , we connect its regions with adjacent frames ( for forward frames and for backward). Too distant frames cannot provide the real-time dynamics. Concretely, we first define the linking score between from frame and from frame by

(2)

where

is the cosine similarity of two features,

is the intersection-over-union of two regions, and is the balanced scalar. Here we simultaneously consider the appearance similarity and spatial overlap ratio of two regions. And the temporal distance of two frames is used to limit the score, that is, for distant frames, the linking score is mainly determined by feature similarity rather than the spatial overlap. Next, for the region , we select the region with the maximal linking score from frame to build an edge, and get edges for each region (including the self-loop). The unlabeled temporal edges have 3 directions: forward, backward and self-loop.

3.2.2 Multi-Step Cross-Modal Graph Reasoning

After graph construction, we incorporate the textual clues into this graph and develop the multi-step cross-modal graph reasoning by spatio-temporal convolution layers.

Cross-Modal Fusion. To capture the relationships associated with the sentence, we first use a cross-modal fusion that dynamically injects textual evidences into the spatio-temporal graph. Concretely, we first utilize an attention mechanism to aggregate the words features for each region. For a region , we calculate the attention weights over word features , denoted by

(3)

where , are projection matrices, is the bias and is the row vector. And is the region-aware textual feature for each region in frame t.

Next, we build the textual gate that takes language information as the guidance to weaken the text-irrelevant regions, given by

(4)

where

is the sigmoid function,

is the element-wise multiplication, means the textual gate for region . And we then concatenate the filtered region feature and textual feature to obtain the cross-modal region features . Next, we develop spatio-temporal convolution layers for the multi-step graph reasoning.

Spatial Graph Convolution. In each layer, we first develop the spatial graph convolution to capture visual relationships among regions in each frame. Concretely, with cross-modal region features , we first adopt the implicit graph convolution on that is undirected and unlabeled, given by

(5)

where are the regions connected with in . The implicit graph convolution can be regarded as a variant of self-attention and we compute the coefficient by combining the visual features and region locations.

Simultaneously, we develop the explicit graph convolution. Different from the original undirected GCN [16, 32], we consider the direction and label information of edges on the directed and labeled , given by

(6)

where are optional matrices by the direction of edge , are optional bias by the label of edge . Here, the edge has three directions (-to-, -to-, -to-) and 51 types. are the regions connected with . Moreover, the relation coefficient can also be chosen by the label of edge . Different sentence describe different relations and their grounding is heavily dependent on the specific relation understanding. Thus, the coefficient of explicit edges can be decided by query presentation , given by

(7)

where corresponds to the coefficients of 51 types of relationships.

Temporal Graph Convolution. We next develop the temporal graph convolution on the directed and unlabeled graph to capture the dynamics and transformation of objects across frames. We consider the forward, backward and self-loop edges for each region with the cross-modal feature , denoted by

(8)

where and are matrices and indicates the direction of edge to select the corresponding projection matrix, where the temporal edges have three directions. And is the semantic coefficient for each neighborhood region.

Next, we combine the outputs of spatial and temporal graph convolutions and obtain the result of the first spatio-temporal convolution layer by

(9)

In order to support multi-order relation modeling, we perform the multi-step encoding by the spatio-temporal graph encoder with spatio-temporal convolution layers and learn final relation-aware region features .

3.3 Spatio-Temporal Localizer

In this section, we devise a spatio-temporal localizer to determine the temporal tube boundaries and spatio-temporal tubes of objects from the region level.

Temporal Localizer.

We first introduce the temporal localizer, which estimates a set of candidate clips and adjust their boundaries to obtain the temporal grounding 

[47]. Specifically, we first aggregate the relation-aware region graph into the frame level by an attention mechanism. With the query representation , the region features of each frame are attended by

(10)

where represents the relation-aware feature of frame . We then concatenate these features with their corresponding global frame features , and apply another BiGRU to learn final frame features . Next, we define multi-scale candidate clips at each time step as , where are the start and end boundaries of the -th clips, is the width of -th clip and

is the clip number. After it, we estimate all candidate clips by a linear layer with the sigmoid nonlinearity and simultaneously produce the offsets of their boundaries, given by

(11)

where corresponds to confidence scores of candidates at step and are the offsets of clips.

The temporal localizer has two losses: the alignment loss for the clip selection and a regression loss for boundary adjustments. Concretely, for alignment loss, we first compute the temporal IoU score of each clip with the ground truth. And the alignment loss is denoted by

(12)

where we use the temporal IoU score rather than 0/1 score to further distinguish high-score clips. Next, we fine-tune the boundaries of the best clip with highest , which has the boundaries and offsets . We first compute the offsets of this clip from ground truth boundaries by and and define the regression loss by

(13)

where represents the smooth L1 function.

Spatial Localizer. With the temporal grounding, we next localize the target regions in each frame. For the -th frame with region features , we directly estimate the matching scores of each region by integrating the query representation and final frame feature , denoted by

(14)

where is the matching score of region of frame . Similar to temporal alignment loss, the spatial loss first compute the spatial IoU score for each region with the ground truth region, where the frames outside the temporal ground truth are omitted. And the spatial loss is denoted by

(15)

where is the set of frames in the temporal ground truth.

Eventually, we devise a multi-task loss to train our proposed STGRN in an end-to-end manner, given by

(16)

where , and are the hyper-parameters to control the balance of three losses.

3.4 Dynamic Selection Method

During inference, we first retrieve the temporal boundaries of the tube from the temporal localizer and then determine the grounded region for each frame by the spatial localizer. A greedy method directly selects the regions with highest matching scores . However, such generated tubes may not be very smooth. The bounding boxes between adjacent frames may have too large displacements. Thus, to make the trajectory smoother, we introduce a dynamic selection method. Concretely, we first define the linking score between regions of successive frames and by

(17)

where and are matching scores of regions and , and is the balanced scalar which is set to 0.2. Next, we generate the final spatio-temporal tube with the maximal energy given by

(18)

where are the temporal boundaries and we solve this optimization problem using a Vitervi algorithm [10].

#Declar. Sent. #Inter. Sent. All
Training 36,202 44,482 80,684
Validation 3,996 4,960 8,956
Testing 4,610 5,693 10,303
All 44,808 55,135 99,943
Table 1: Dataset Statistics about the Number of Declarative and Interrogative Sentences.
Method Declarative Sentence Grounding Interrogative Sentence Grounding
m_tIoU m_vIoU vIoU@0.3 vIoU@0.5 m_tIoU m_vIoU vIoU@0.3 vIoU@0.5
Random 5.18% 0.69% 0.04% 0.01% 5.35% 0.60% 0.02% 0.01%
GroundeR + TALL 34.63% 9.78% 11.04% 4.09% 33.73% 9.32% 11.39% 3.24%
STPR + TALL 10.40% 12.38% 4.27% 9.98% 11.74% 4.36%
WSSTG + TALL 11.36% 14.63% 5.91% 10.65% 13.90% 5.32%
GroundeR + L-Net 40.86% 11.89% 15.32% 5.45% 39.79% 11.05% 14.28% 5.11%
STPR + L-Net 12.93% 16.27% 5.68% 11.94% 14.73% 5.27%
WSSTG + L-Net 14.45% 18.00% 7.89% 13.36% 17.39% 7.06%
STGRN (Greedy) 48.47% 18.99% 23.63% 13.48% 46.98% 17.46% 20.02% 11.92%
STGRN 19.75% 25.77% 14.60% 18.32% 21.10% 12.83%
GroundeR + Tem. Gt - 28.80% 43.20% 22.74% - 26.11% 38.37% 18.34%
STPR + Tem. Gt - 29.72% 44.78% 23.83% - 26.97% 39.89% 20.07%
WSSTG + Tem. Gt - 33.32% 50.01% 29.98% - 30.05% 44.54% 25.76%
STGRN + Tem. Gt - 38.04% 54.47% 34.80% - 35.70% 47.79% 31.41%
Table 2: Performance Evaluation Results on the VidSTG Dataset.

4 Dataset

As a novel task, STVG lacks a suitable dataset as the benchmark. Previous temporal sentence grounding datasets like DiDeMo [11], Charades-STA [8], TACoS [27] and ActivityCation [17] only provide the temporal annotations for each sentence and lack the spatio-temporal bounding boxes. As for existing video grounding datasets, Persen-sentence [36] is originally used for spatio-temporal person retrieval among trimmed videos and only contains one type of objects (i.e. people), which is too simple for the STVG task. VID-sentence dataset [4] contains 30 categories but also is annotated on trimmed videos. Therefore, we contribute a large-scale spatio-temporal video grounding dataset VidSTG by augmenting the sentence annotations on VidOR [30].

4.1 Dataset Annotation

VidOR [30] is the existing largest object relation dataset, containing 10,000 videos and fine-grained annotations for objects and their relations. Specifically, VidOR annotates 80 categories of objects with dense bounding boxes and annotates 50 categories of relation predicates among objects (8 spatial relations and 42 action relations). Specifically, VidOR denotes a relation as a triplet and each triplet is associated with the temporal boundaries and spatio-temporal tubes of and . Based on VidOR, we can select the suitable triplets, and describe the or with multi-form sentences. Taking VidOR as the basic dataset has many advantages. On the one hand, we can avoid labor-intensive annotations for bounding boxes. On the other hand, the relationships in the triplets can be simply incorporated into the annotated sentences.

We first split and clean the VidOR data, and then annotate the rest video-triplet pairs with multi-form sentences. The cleaning process is introduced in the supplementary material. For each video-triplet pair, we choose the or as the queried object, and then describe its appearance, relationships with other objects and visual environments. For interrogative annotations, the appearance of queried objects is ignored. We discard video-triplet pairs that are too hard to give a precise description. And a video-triplet pair may correspond to multiple sentences.

4.2 Dataset Statistics

After annotation, there are 99,943 sentence descriptions about 80 types of queried objects for 44,808 video-triplet pairs. The average duration of videos is 28.01s and the average temporal length of object tubes is 9.68s. The average lengths of declarative and interrogative sentences are 11.12 and 8.98, respectively. Table 1 give the statistics of sentences annotations. We further provide the distribution of 80 types of queried objects and some annotation examples in the supplementary material.

5 Experiments

5.1 Experimental Settings

Implementation Details. In STGRN, we first sample 5 frames per second and downsample the frame number of overlong videos to 200. We then pretrain the Faster R-CNN on MSCOCO [20] to extract 20 region proposals for each frame (i.e. = 20). The region feature dimension is 1,024 and we map it 256 before graph modeling. For sentences, we use a pretrained Glove word2vec [26] to extract 300-d word embeddings. As for the hyper-parameters, we set to 5, to 0.8, to 0.2 and set , , to 1.0, 0.001 and 1.0, respectively. The layer number of the spatio-temporal graph encoder is set to 2. For the temporal localizer, we set to 8 and define 8 window widths . We set the dimension of almost parameter matrices and bias to 256, including the , in the explicit graph convolution, and in the temporal localizer and so on. And the BiGRU networks have 128-d hidden states for each direction. During training, we apply an Adam optimizer [7] to minimize the multi-task loss , where the initial learning rate is set to 0.001 and the batch size is 16.

Evaluation Criteria. We employ the m_tIoU, m_vIoU and vIoU@R as evaluation criteria [9, 4]. The m_tIoU is the average temporal IoU between the selected clips and ground truth clips. And we define as the set of frames contained in the selected or ground truth clips, and as the set of frames in both selected and ground truth clips. We calculate vIoU by , where and are selected and ground truth regions of frame . The m_vIoU is the average vIoU of samples and vIoU@R is the proportion of samples which vIoU R.

Baseline. Since no existing strategy can be directly applies to STVG, we extend the existing visual grounding method GroundeR [29] and video grounding approaches STPR [36] and WSSTG [4] as the baselines. Considering these methods all lack temporal grounding, we first apply the temporal sentence localization methods TALL [8] and L-Net [3] to obtain a clip and then retrieve the tubes from the trimmed clip by GroundeR, STPR and WSSTG. The GroundeR is a frame-level approach, which originally grounds natural language in a still image. We apply it for each frame of the clip and generate a tube. The STPR and WSSTG are both tube-level methods and adopt the tube pre-generation framework. Specifically, the original STPR [36] only grounds persons from multiple videos, we extend it to multi-type object grounding in a single clip. The original WSSTG [4] employs a weakly-supervised setting, we extend it by applying a supervised triplet loss [37] to select candidate tubes. So we obtain 6 combined baselines GroundeR+TALL, STPR+TALL and so on. We also provide the temporal ground truth to form 3 baselines. We show more baseline details in the supplementary material.

5.2 Experiment Results

Table 2 shows the overall experiment results of all methods, where STGRN(Greedy) uses the greedy region selection for the tube generation rather than the dynamic method. The Random selects the temporal clip and spatial regions randomly. Tem. Gt means that the temporal ground truth is provided. We can find several interesting points:

  • The GroundeR+ methods independently ground sentences in every frame and achieve worse performance than STPR+ and WSSTG+ methods, validating the temporal object dynamics across frames are vital for spatio-temporal video grounding.

  • The model performance on interrogative sentences is obviously lower than declarative sentences, which shows the interrogative sentences with unknown objects are more difficult to ground.

  • For temporal grounding, our STGRN achieves a better performance than the frame-level localization method TALL and L-Net, demonstrating the spatio-temporal region modeling is effective to determine the temporal boundaries of object tubes.

  • For spatio-temporal grounding, our STGRN outperforms all baselines on both declarative and interrogative sentences with or without temporal ground truth, which suggests our cross-modal spatio-temporal graph reasoning can effectively capture the object relationships with temporal dynamics and our spatio-temporal localizer can retrieve the object tubes precisely.

  • Our STGRN with the dynamic selection method outperforms the STGRN(Greedy) with the greedy method, showing the dynamic smoothness is beneficial to generate high-quality tubes.

m_tIoU m_vIoU vIoU@0.3
44.81% 17.13% 21.08%
45.56% 17.58% 21.49%
45.12% 17.53% 21.91%
45.99% 17.72% 22.07%
46.70% 18.07% 22.23%
47.12% 18.28% 22.52%
47.64% 18.96% 23.19%
Table 3: Ablation Results on the VidSTG Dataset.

5.3 Ablation Study

In this section, we conduct the ablation studies on the spatio-temporal region graph that is the key component of our STGRN. Concretely, the spatio-temporal graph includes the implicit spatial subgraph , explicit spatial subgraph and temporal dynamic subgraph . We selectively discard them to generate ablation models and report all ablation results in Table 3, where we do not distinguish the declarative and interrogative sentences. From these results, we can find that the full model outperforms all ablation models, validating each subgraph is helpful for spatio-temporal video grounding. If only a subgraph is applied, the model with achieves the best performance, demonstrating the explicit modeling is the most important to capture object relationships. And if two subgraphs are used, the model with and outperforms other models, which suggests the spatio-temporal modeling play a crucial role in relation understanding and high-quality video grounding.

Moreover, the layer number

is the essential hyperparameter of the spatio-temporal graph. We investigate the effect of

by varying it from 1 to 5. Figure 3 shows the experimental results on the criteria m_tIoU and m_vIoU for both declarative and interrogative sentences. From the results, we can find our STGRN has the best performance when is set to 2. The one-layer graph cannot sufficiently capture the object relationships and temporal dynamics. And too many layers may result in region over-smoothing, that is, each region feature tends to be identical. The performance changes on different criteria and sentence types are basically consistent, demonstrating the stable influence of .

Figure 3: Effect of the Number of Spatio-Temporal Graph Convolution Layers.
Figure 4: A Example of the Spatio-Temporal Grounding Result.

5.4 Qualitative Analysis

We display a typical example in Figure 4. The sentence describes two parallel actions ”grab the hands” and ”jump off the slide” of the boy in a short-term segment, requiring the accurate spatio-temporal grounding. By intuitive comparison, our STRGN gives a more precise temporal segment and generates a more reasonable spatio-temporal tube than the baseline WSSTG+L-net. Moreover, the attention method in the cross-modal fusion module builds a bridge between visual and textual contents, and we visualize the weights of several key regions over the sentences here. We can see that semantic related region-word pairs have a larger weight, e.g., the region of the boy and the word ”child”.

6 Conclusion

In this paper, we propose a novel spatio-temporal video grounding task STVG and contribute a large-scale dataset VidSTG as its benchmark. We then design a STGRN to capture region relationships with temporal object dynamics and directly localize the spatio-temporal tubes from the region level. In the future, we will further explore this task and consider more details.

References

  • [1] Arun Balajee Vasudevan, Dengxin Dai, and Luc Van Gool. Object referring in videos with language and human gaze. In

    Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    , pages 4129–4138, 2018.
  • [2] Jingyuan Chen, Xinpeng Chen, Lin Ma, Zequn Jie, and Tat-Seng Chua. Temporally grounding natural sentence in video. In EMNLP, pages 162–171. ACL, 2018.
  • [3] Jingyuan Chen, Lin Ma, Xinpeng Chen, Zequn Jie, and Jiebo Luo. Localizing natural language in videos. In AAAI, 2019.
  • [4] Zhenfang Chen, Lin Ma, Wenhan Luo, and Kwan-Yee K Wong. Weakly-supervised spatio-temporally grounding natural sentence in video. 2019.
  • [5] Junyoung Chung, Caglar Gulcehre, KyungHyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio.

    Empirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling.

    In NIPS, 2014.
  • [6] Chaorui Deng, Qi Wu, Qingyao Wu, Fuyuan Hu, Fan Lyu, and Mingkui Tan. Visual grounding via accumulated attention. In CVPR, pages 7746–7755, 2018.
  • [7] John Duchi, Elad Hazan, and Yoram Singer. Adaptive subgradient methods for online learning and stochastic optimization.

    Journal of Machine Learning Research

    , 12(Jul):2121–2159, 2011.
  • [8] Jiyang Gao, Chen Sun, Zhenheng Yang, and Ram Nevatia. TALL: temporal activity localization via language query. In ICCV, pages 5277–5285. IEEE, 2017.
  • [9] Jiyang Gao, Zhenheng Yang, Chen Sun, Kan Chen, and Ram Nevatia. Turn tap: Temporal unit regression network for temporal action proposals. 2017.
  • [10] Georgia Gkioxari and Jitendra Malik. Finding action tubes. In CVPR, pages 759–768, 2015.
  • [11] Lisa Anne Hendricks, Oliver Wang, Eli Shechtman, Josef Sivic, Trevor Darrell, and Bryan Russell.

    Localizing moments in video with natural language.

    In ICCV, pages 5803–5812, 2017.
  • [12] Lisa Anne Hendricks, Oliver Wang, Eli Shechtman, Josef Sivic, Trevor Darrell, and Bryan Russell. Localizing moments in video with temporal language. In EMNLP, pages 1380–1390. ACL, 2018.
  • [13] Ronghang Hu, Marcus Rohrbach, Jacob Andreas, Trevor Darrell, and Kate Saenko. Modeling relationships in referential expressions with compositional modular networks. In CVPR, pages 1115–1124, 2017.
  • [14] Ronghang Hu, Huazhe Xu, Marcus Rohrbach, Jiashi Feng, Kate Saenko, and Trevor Darrell. Natural language object retrieval. In CVPR, pages 4555–4564, 2016.
  • [15] De-An Huang, Shyamal Buch, Lucio Dery, Animesh Garg, Li Fei-Fei, and Juan Carlos Niebles. Finding ”it”: Weakly-supervised reference-aware visual grounding in instructional videos. In CVPR, June 2018.
  • [16] Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. In ICLR, 2016.
  • [17] Ranjay Krishna, Kenji Hata, Frederic Ren, Li Fei-Fei, and Juan Carlos Niebles. Dense-captioning events in videos. In ICCV, pages 706–715, 2017.
  • [18] Ranjay Krishna, Yuke Zhu, Oliver Groth, Justin Johnson, Kenji Hata, Joshua Kravitz, Stephanie Chen, Yannis Kalantidis, Li-Jia Li, David A Shamma, et al. Visual genome: Connecting language and vision using crowdsourced dense image annotations. International Journal of Computer Vision, 123(1):32–73, 2017.
  • [19] Linjie Li, Zhe Gan, Yu Cheng, and Jingjing Liu. Relation-aware graph attention network for visual question answering. In ICCV, 2019.
  • [20] Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dollár, and C Lawrence Zitnick. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In ECCV, pages 740–755. Springer, 2014.
  • [21] Meng Liu, Xiang Wang, Liqiang Nie, Xiangnan He, Baoquan Chen, and Tat-Seng Chua. Attentive moment retrieval in videos. In SIGIR, pages 15–24. ACM, 2018.
  • [22] Meng Liu, Xiang Wang, Liqiang Nie, Qi Tian, Baoquan Chen, and Tat-Seng Chua. Cross-modal moment localization in videos. In MM, pages 843–851. ACM, 2018.
  • [23] Junhua Mao, Jonathan Huang, Alexander Toshev, Oana Camburu, Alan L Yuille, and Kevin Murphy. Generation and comprehension of unambiguous object descriptions. In CVPR, pages 11–20, 2016.
  • [24] Niluthpol Chowdhury Mithun, Sujoy Paul, and Amit K Roy-Chowdhury. Weakly supervised video moment retrieval from text queries. In CVPR, pages 11592–11601, 2019.
  • [25] Varun K Nagaraja, Vlad I Morariu, and Larry S Davis. Modeling context between objects for referring expression understanding. In ECCV, pages 792–807. Springer, 2016.
  • [26] Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In EMNLP, pages 1532–1543, 2014.
  • [27] Michaela Regneri, Marcus Rohrbach, Dominikus Wetzel, Stefan Thater, Bernt Schiele, and Manfred Pinkal. Grounding action descriptions in videos. Transactions of the Association of Computational Linguistics, 1:25–36, 2013.
  • [28] Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, and Jian Sun. Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. In NIPS, pages 91–99, 2015.
  • [29] Anna Rohrbach, Marcus Rohrbach, Ronghang Hu, Trevor Darrell, and Bernt Schiele. Grounding of textual phrases in images by reconstruction. In ECCV, pages 817–834. Springer, 2016.
  • [30] Xindi Shang, Donglin Di, Junbin Xiao, Yu Cao, Xun Yang, and Tat-Seng Chua. Annotating objects and relations in user-generated videos. In ICMR, pages 279–287. ACM, 2019.
  • [31] Jing Shi, Jia Xu, Boqing Gong, and Chenliang Xu. Not all frames are equal: Weakly-supervised video grounding with contextual similarity and visual clustering losses. In CVPR.
  • [32] Petar Veličković, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. Graph attention networks. In ICLR, 2017.
  • [33] Weining Wang, Yan Huang, and Liang Wang. Language-driven temporal activity localization: A semantic matching reinforcement learning model. In CVPR, pages 334–343, 2019.
  • [34] Fanyi Xiao, Leonid Sigal, and Yong Jae Lee. Weakly-supervised visual grounding of phrases with linguistic structures. In CVPR, pages 5945–5954, 2017.
  • [35] Huijuan Xu, Kun He, L Sigal, S Sclaroff, and K Saenko. Multilevel language and vision integration for text-to-clip retrieval. In AAAI, volume 2, page 7, 2019.
  • [36] Masataka Yamaguchi, Kuniaki Saito, Yoshitaka Ushiku, and Tatsuya Harada. Spatio-temporal person retrieval via natural language queries. In ICCV, pages 1453–1462, 2017.
  • [37] Sibei Yang, Guanbin Li, and Yizhou Yu. Cross-modal relationship inference for grounding referring expressions. In CVPR, pages 4145–4154, 2019.
  • [38] Sibei Yang, Guanbin Li, and Yizhou Yu. Dynamic graph attention for referring expression comprehension. In ICCV, pages 4644–4653, 2019.
  • [39] Ting Yao, Yingwei Pan, Yehao Li, and Tao Mei.

    Exploring visual relationship for image captioning.

    In ECCV, pages 684–699, 2018.
  • [40] Licheng Yu, Zhe Lin, Xiaohui Shen, Jimei Yang, Xin Lu, Mohit Bansal, and Tamara L Berg. Mattnet: Modular attention network for referring expression comprehension. In CVPR, pages 1307–1315, 2018.
  • [41] Licheng Yu, Patrick Poirson, Shan Yang, Alexander C Berg, and Tamara L Berg. Modeling context in referring expressions. In ECCV, pages 69–85. Springer, 2016.
  • [42] Licheng Yu, Hao Tan, Mohit Bansal, and Tamara L Berg. A joint speaker-listener-reinforcer model for referring expressions. In CVPR, pages 7282–7290, 2017.
  • [43] Rowan Zellers, Mark Yatskar, Sam Thomson, and Yejin Choi. Neural motifs: Scene graph parsing with global context. In CVPR, pages 5831–5840, 2018.
  • [44] Da Zhang, Xiyang Dai, Xin Wang, Yuan-Fang Wang, and Larry S Davis. Man: Moment alignment network for natural language moment retrieval via iterative graph adjustment. In CVPR, pages 1247–1257, 2019.
  • [45] Hanwang Zhang, Yulei Niu, and Shih-Fu Chang. Grounding referring expressions in images by variational context. In CVPR, pages 4158–4166, 2018.
  • [46] Zhu Zhang, Zhijie Lin, Zhou Zhao, and Zhenxin Xiao. Cross-modal interaction networks for query-based moment retrieval in videos. In SIGIR, 2019.
  • [47] Zhu Zhang, Zhijie Lin, Zhou Zhao, and Zhenxin Xiao. Cross-modal interaction networks for query-based moment retrieval in videos. In SIGIR, 2019.
  • [48] Luowei Zhou, Nathan Louis, and Jason J Corso. Weakly-supervised video object grounding from text by loss weighting and object interaction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.02834, 2018.
  • [49] Bohan Zhuang, Qi Wu, Chunhua Shen, Ian Reid, and Anton van den Hengel. Parallel attention: A unified framework for visual object discovery through dialogs and queries. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4252–4261, 2018.