Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness ofAlternative Content Segmentation Methods

for Internet Video Search

Maria Eskevich1, Gareth J.F. Jones1, Martha Larson2

Christian Wartena2,3

Robin Aly4, Thijs Verschoor4, Roeland Ordelman4

1 Centre for Digital Video Processing, Centre for Next Generation LocalisationSchool of Computing, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

2 Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands3 Univ. of Applied Sciences and Arts Hannover

4 University of Twente, The Netherlands

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Outline

I MediaEval 2011 Rich Speech Retrieval TaskI 3 participant groups methodsI Results and examplesI ConclusionI Future Work: Brave New Task at MediaEval 2012

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

ediaEval 2011Rich Speech Retrieval (RSR) Task

I Task Goal:I Information to be found - combination of required

audio and visual content, and speaker’s intention

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

ediaEval 2011Rich Speech Retrieval (RSR) Task

I Task Goal:I Information to be found - combination of required

audio and visual content, and speaker’s intention

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

ediaEval 2011Rich Speech Retrieval (RSR) Task

I Task Goal:I Information to be found - combination of required

audio and visual content, and speaker’s intention

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

ediaEval 2011Rich Speech Retrieval (RSR) Task

I Task Goal:I Information to be found - combination of required

audio and visual content, and speaker’s intention

Transcript 1

6=Meaning 1 6=

Transcript 2

Meaning 2

Conventional retrieval

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

ediaEval 2011Rich Speech Retrieval (RSR) Task

I Task Goal:I Information to be found - combination of required

audio and visual content, and speaker’s intention

Transcript 1

6=

Meaning 1

6=

Transcript 2Meaning 2

Conventional retrieval

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

ediaEval 2011Rich Speech Retrieval (RSR) Task

I Task Goal:I Information to be found - combination of required

audio and visual content, and speaker’s intention

Transcript 1 6=Meaning 1 6=

Transcript 2Meaning 2

Conventional retrieval

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

ediaEval 2011Rich Speech Retrieval (RSR) Task

I Task Goal:I Information to be found - combination of required

audio and visual content, and speaker’s intention

Transcript 1 6=Meaning 1 6=

Transcript 2Meaning 2

Conventional retrieval

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

ediaEval 2011Rich Speech Retrieval (RSR) Task

I Task Goal:I Information to be found - combination of required

audio and visual content, and speaker’s intention

Transcript 1 =Meaning 1 6=

Speech act 1 6=

Transcript 2Meaning 2

Speech act 2

Extended speech retrieval (find jump-in points)

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

ediaEval 2011Rich Speech Retrieval (RSR) Task

I Task Goal:I Information to be found - combination of required

audio and visual content, and speaker’s intention

Transcript 1 =Meaning 1 6=Speech act 1 6=

Transcript 2Meaning 2Speech act 2

Extended speech retrieval (find jump-in points)

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

ediaEval 2011Rich Speech Retrieval (RSR) Task

I Task Goal:I Information to be found - combination of required

audio and visual content, and speaker’s intention

Transcript 1 =Meaning 1 6=Speech act 1 6=

Transcript 2Meaning 2Speech act 2

Extended speech retrieval (find jump-in points)

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

ediaEval 2011Rich Speech Retrieval (RSR) Task

I Data provided to task participants:I Videos from Internet video sharing platform blip.tv

(ME10WWW dataset: testset: 1727 episodes, ca. 300 hs)I Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) transcript provided

by LIMSI and Vocapia ResearchI Metadata manually added by the uploaderI 50 user-generated short web style queries collected via

crowdsourcing, associated with following speech act types:I ’expressives’: apology (1), opinion (21)I ’assertives’: definition (17)I ’directives’: warning (6)I ’commissives’: promise (5)

I Data available for results assessment:I Time of the relevant item for the labeled speech actI Accurate transcript of the labeled speech act

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

ediaEval 2011Rich Speech Retrieval (RSR) Task

I Data provided to task participants:

I Videos from Internet video sharing platform blip.tv(ME10WWW dataset: testset: 1727 episodes, ca. 300 hs)

I Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) transcript providedby LIMSI and Vocapia Research

I Metadata manually added by the uploaderI 50 user-generated short web style queries collected via

crowdsourcing, associated with following speech act types:I ’expressives’: apology (1), opinion (21)I ’assertives’: definition (17)I ’directives’: warning (6)I ’commissives’: promise (5)

I Data available for results assessment:I Time of the relevant item for the labeled speech actI Accurate transcript of the labeled speech act

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

ediaEval 2011Rich Speech Retrieval (RSR) Task

I Data provided to task participants:I Videos from Internet video sharing platform blip.tv

(ME10WWW dataset: testset: 1727 episodes, ca. 300 hs)

I Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) transcript providedby LIMSI and Vocapia Research

I Metadata manually added by the uploaderI 50 user-generated short web style queries collected via

crowdsourcing, associated with following speech act types:I ’expressives’: apology (1), opinion (21)I ’assertives’: definition (17)I ’directives’: warning (6)I ’commissives’: promise (5)

I Data available for results assessment:I Time of the relevant item for the labeled speech actI Accurate transcript of the labeled speech act

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

ediaEval 2011Rich Speech Retrieval (RSR) Task

I Data provided to task participants:I Videos from Internet video sharing platform blip.tv

(ME10WWW dataset: testset: 1727 episodes, ca. 300 hs)I Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) transcript provided

by LIMSI and Vocapia Research

I Metadata manually added by the uploaderI 50 user-generated short web style queries collected via

crowdsourcing, associated with following speech act types:I ’expressives’: apology (1), opinion (21)I ’assertives’: definition (17)I ’directives’: warning (6)I ’commissives’: promise (5)

I Data available for results assessment:I Time of the relevant item for the labeled speech actI Accurate transcript of the labeled speech act

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

ediaEval 2011Rich Speech Retrieval (RSR) Task

I Data provided to task participants:I Videos from Internet video sharing platform blip.tv

(ME10WWW dataset: testset: 1727 episodes, ca. 300 hs)I Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) transcript provided

by LIMSI and Vocapia ResearchI Metadata manually added by the uploader

I 50 user-generated short web style queries collected viacrowdsourcing, associated with following speech act types:

I ’expressives’: apology (1), opinion (21)I ’assertives’: definition (17)I ’directives’: warning (6)I ’commissives’: promise (5)

I Data available for results assessment:I Time of the relevant item for the labeled speech actI Accurate transcript of the labeled speech act

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

ediaEval 2011Rich Speech Retrieval (RSR) Task

I Data provided to task participants:I Videos from Internet video sharing platform blip.tv

(ME10WWW dataset: testset: 1727 episodes, ca. 300 hs)I Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) transcript provided

by LIMSI and Vocapia ResearchI Metadata manually added by the uploaderI 50 user-generated short web style queries collected via

crowdsourcing, associated with following speech act types:

I ’expressives’: apology (1), opinion (21)I ’assertives’: definition (17)I ’directives’: warning (6)I ’commissives’: promise (5)

I Data available for results assessment:I Time of the relevant item for the labeled speech actI Accurate transcript of the labeled speech act

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

ediaEval 2011Rich Speech Retrieval (RSR) Task

I Data provided to task participants:I Videos from Internet video sharing platform blip.tv

(ME10WWW dataset: testset: 1727 episodes, ca. 300 hs)I Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) transcript provided

by LIMSI and Vocapia ResearchI Metadata manually added by the uploaderI 50 user-generated short web style queries collected via

crowdsourcing, associated with following speech act types:I ’expressives’: apology (1), opinion (21)I ’assertives’: definition (17)I ’directives’: warning (6)I ’commissives’: promise (5)

I Data available for results assessment:I Time of the relevant item for the labeled speech actI Accurate transcript of the labeled speech act

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

ediaEval 2011Rich Speech Retrieval (RSR) Task

I Data provided to task participants:I Videos from Internet video sharing platform blip.tv

(ME10WWW dataset: testset: 1727 episodes, ca. 300 hs)I Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) transcript provided

by LIMSI and Vocapia ResearchI Metadata manually added by the uploaderI 50 user-generated short web style queries collected via

crowdsourcing, associated with following speech act types:I ’expressives’: apology (1), opinion (21)I ’assertives’: definition (17)I ’directives’: warning (6)I ’commissives’: promise (5)

I Data available for results assessment:

I Time of the relevant item for the labeled speech actI Accurate transcript of the labeled speech act

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

ediaEval 2011Rich Speech Retrieval (RSR) Task

I Data provided to task participants:I Videos from Internet video sharing platform blip.tv

(ME10WWW dataset: testset: 1727 episodes, ca. 300 hs)I Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) transcript provided

by LIMSI and Vocapia ResearchI Metadata manually added by the uploaderI 50 user-generated short web style queries collected via

crowdsourcing, associated with following speech act types:I ’expressives’: apology (1), opinion (21)I ’assertives’: definition (17)I ’directives’: warning (6)I ’commissives’: promise (5)

I Data available for results assessment:I Time of the relevant item for the labeled speech act

I Accurate transcript of the labeled speech act

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

ediaEval 2011Rich Speech Retrieval (RSR) Task

I Data provided to task participants:I Videos from Internet video sharing platform blip.tv

(ME10WWW dataset: testset: 1727 episodes, ca. 300 hs)I Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) transcript provided

by LIMSI and Vocapia ResearchI Metadata manually added by the uploaderI 50 user-generated short web style queries collected via

crowdsourcing, associated with following speech act types:I ’expressives’: apology (1), opinion (21)I ’assertives’: definition (17)I ’directives’: warning (6)I ’commissives’: promise (5)

I Data available for results assessment:I Time of the relevant item for the labeled speech actI Accurate transcript of the labeled speech act

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Evaluation Metrics

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Evaluation Metrics

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Evaluation Metrics

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Evaluation Metrics

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Evaluation Metrics

I Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR):

RR =1

RANKI Mean Generalized Average Precision (mGAP):

GAP =1

RANK. PENALTY

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Evaluation Metrics

I Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR):

RR =1

RANKI Mean Generalized Average Precision (mGAP):

GAP =1

RANK. PENALTY

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Approach 1: Sliding Window (SW)

I Tag and lemmatize the words

I Segmentation with sliding window:

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Approach 1: Sliding Window (SW)

I Tag and lemmatize the wordsI Segmentation with sliding window:

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Approach 1: Sliding Window (SW)

I Tag and lemmatize the wordsI Segmentation with sliding window:

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Approach 1: Sliding Window (SW)

I Tag and lemmatize the wordsI Segmentation with sliding window:

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Approach 1: Sliding Window (SW)

I Tag and lemmatize the wordsI Segmentation with sliding window:

I Retrieval using BM25, BM25F - for use of metadataI Post-processing:

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Approach 1: Sliding Window (SW)

I Tag and lemmatize the wordsI Segmentation with sliding window:

I Retrieval using BM25, BM25F - for use of metadata

I Post-processing:

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Approach 1: Sliding Window (SW)

I Tag and lemmatize the wordsI Segmentation with sliding window:

I Retrieval using BM25, BM25F - for use of metadataI Post-processing:

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Approach 1: Sliding Window (SW)

I Tag and lemmatize the wordsI Segmentation with sliding window:

I Retrieval using BM25, BM25F - for use of metadataI Post-processing:

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Approach 1: Sliding Window (SW)

I Tag and lemmatize the wordsI Segmentation with sliding window:

I Retrieval using BM25, BM25F - for use of metadataI Post-processing:

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Approach 1: Sliding Window (SW)

I Tag and lemmatize the wordsI Segmentation with sliding window:

I Retrieval using BM25, BM25F - for use of metadataI Post-processing:

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Approach 2: Speech Segments (Sp)

I Segmentation based on silence points and changes ofspeakers

I Search engine used: PFTijah

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Approach 2: Speech Segments (Sp)

I Segmentation based on silence points and changes ofspeakers

I Search engine used: PFTijah

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Approach 2: Speech Segments (Sp)

I Segmentation based on silence points and changes ofspeakers

I Search engine used: PFTijah

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Approach 3: Lexical cohesion (LC)

I Segmentation:I into lexically coherent segments, using 2 algorithms:

C99 and TextTilingI additional segment boundaries for silences > 0.5 sec

I SMART IR system with language modeling

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Approach 3: Lexical cohesion (LC)

I Segmentation:I into lexically coherent segments, using 2 algorithms:

C99 and TextTilingI additional segment boundaries for silences > 0.5 sec

I SMART IR system with language modeling

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

RSR Results: MRR and mGAP

RunName WindowSize60 30 10

MRR mGAP MRR mGAP MRR mGAPSW asr sh 0.37 0.32 0.32 0.27 0.19 0.19

SW asr meta sh 0.35 0.29 0.30 0.25 0.14 0.14SW meta 0.20 0.15 0.18 0.13 0.06 0.06

Sp asr 0.34 0.27 0.27 0.22 0.16 0.16Sp asr meta 0.34 0.25 0.26 0.21 0.15 0.15

Sp meta 0.18 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.07 0.07LC asr tt 0.36 0.25 0.29 0.18 0.09 0.09

LC asr meta tt 0.39 0.28 0.30 0.20 0.14 0.14LC meta 0.18 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.03

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

RSR Results: MRR and mGAP

RunName WindowSize60 30 10

MRR mGAP MRR mGAP MRR mGAPSW asr sh 0.37 0.32 0.32 0.27 0.19 0.19

SW asr meta sh 0.35 0.29 0.30 0.25 0.14 0.14SW meta 0.20 0.15 0.18 0.13 0.06 0.06

Sp asr 0.34 0.27 0.27 0.22 0.16 0.16Sp asr meta 0.34 0.25 0.26 0.21 0.15 0.15

Sp meta 0.18 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.07 0.07LC asr tt 0.36 0.25 0.29 0.18 0.09 0.09

LC asr meta tt 0.39 0.28 0.30 0.20 0.14 0.14LC meta 0.18 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.03

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Relationship BetweenRetrieval Effectiveness and Segmentation Methods

Segment:I 100 % Recall of the relevant contentI High Precision (30, 56 %) of the relevant contentI Topic consistency

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Relationship BetweenRetrieval Effectiveness and Segmentation Methods

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Relationship BetweenRetrieval Effectiveness and Segmentation Methods

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Relationship BetweenRetrieval Effectiveness and Segmentation MethodsExample 1

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Relationship BetweenRetrieval Effectiveness and Segmentation MethodsExample 1

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Relationship BetweenRetrieval Effectiveness and Segmentation MethodsExample 1

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Relationship BetweenRetrieval Effectiveness and Segmentation MethodsExample 1

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Relationship BetweenRetrieval Effectiveness and Segmentation MethodsExample 2

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Overlap of query wordswith ASR transcript or Metadata. Example 3

Segments on the same topicare retrieved in top of the list;

Use of metadata for segmentscontaining relevant content:

I decrease the rank, ifsegment > 1 topic

I does not affect the rank, ifsegment = 1 topic

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Overlap of query wordswith ASR transcript or Metadata. Example 3

Segments on the same topicare retrieved in top of the list;

Use of metadata for segmentscontaining relevant content:

I decrease the rank, ifsegment > 1 topic

I does not affect the rank, ifsegment = 1 topic

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Overlap of query wordswith ASR transcript or Metadata. Example 3

Segments on the same topicare retrieved in top of the list;

Use of metadata for segmentscontaining relevant content:

I decrease the rank, ifsegment > 1 topic

I does not affect the rank, ifsegment = 1 topic

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Overlap of query wordswith ASR transcript or Metadata. Example 4

Segment:I High Recall (83, 100 %)I Precision = 23 %I Several topics covered− > Use of metadata increase the rank (Rank = 1)

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Overlap of query wordswith ASR transcript or Metadata. Example 4

Segment:I High Recall (83, 100 %)I Precision = 23 %I Several topics covered

− > Use of metadata increase the rank (Rank = 1)

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Overlap of query wordswith ASR transcript or Metadata. Example 4

Segment:I High Recall (83, 100 %)I Precision = 23 %I Several topics covered− > Use of metadata increase the rank (Rank = 1)

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Conclusions and Future Work

I Segmentation plays significant role in retrieving relevantcontent

I High recall and precision of the relevant content within thesegment lead to good segment ranking.

I Related metadata is useful to improve ranking of thesegment with high recall and non relevant content.

− > Current exploration of segmentation methods to generatesegments that have high recall and precision of the relevantcontent for the query

I Due to small size of the query set no general conclusionson the difference based on the speech act type

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Conclusions and Future Work

I Segmentation plays significant role in retrieving relevantcontent

I High recall and precision of the relevant content within thesegment lead to good segment ranking.

I Related metadata is useful to improve ranking of thesegment with high recall and non relevant content.

− > Current exploration of segmentation methods to generatesegments that have high recall and precision of the relevantcontent for the query

I Due to small size of the query set no general conclusionson the difference based on the speech act type

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Conclusions and Future Work

I Segmentation plays significant role in retrieving relevantcontent

I High recall and precision of the relevant content within thesegment lead to good segment ranking.

I Related metadata is useful to improve ranking of thesegment with high recall and non relevant content.

− > Current exploration of segmentation methods to generatesegments that have high recall and precision of the relevantcontent for the query

I Due to small size of the query set no general conclusionson the difference based on the speech act type

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Conclusions and Future Work

I Segmentation plays significant role in retrieving relevantcontent

I High recall and precision of the relevant content within thesegment lead to good segment ranking.

I Related metadata is useful to improve ranking of thesegment with high recall and non relevant content.

− > Current exploration of segmentation methods to generatesegments that have high recall and precision of the relevantcontent for the query

I Due to small size of the query set no general conclusionson the difference based on the speech act type

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

Conclusions and Future Work

I Segmentation plays significant role in retrieving relevantcontent

I High recall and precision of the relevant content within thesegment lead to good segment ranking.

I Related metadata is useful to improve ranking of thesegment with high recall and non relevant content.

− > Current exploration of segmentation methods to generatesegments that have high recall and precision of the relevantcontent for the query

I Due to small size of the query set no general conclusionson the difference based on the speech act type

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

ediaEval 2012 Brave New Task:Search and Hyperlinking

I Use Scenario:I A user is searching for a known segment in a video

collection.I Furthermore, because the information in the segment might

not be sufficient for his information need, s/he wants tohave links to other related video segments, which may helpto satisfy information need related to this video.

I Sub-tasks:I Search: finding suitable video segments based on a short

natural language query,I Linking: defining links to other relevant video segments in

the collection.

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

ediaEval 2012 Brave New Task:Search and Hyperlinking

I Use Scenario:I A user is searching for a known segment in a video

collection.I Furthermore, because the information in the segment might

not be sufficient for his information need, s/he wants tohave links to other related video segments, which may helpto satisfy information need related to this video.

I Sub-tasks:

I Search: finding suitable video segments based on a shortnatural language query,

I Linking: defining links to other relevant video segments inthe collection.

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

ediaEval 2012 Brave New Task:Search and Hyperlinking

I Use Scenario:I A user is searching for a known segment in a video

collection.I Furthermore, because the information in the segment might

not be sufficient for his information need, s/he wants tohave links to other related video segments, which may helpto satisfy information need related to this video.

I Sub-tasks:I Search: finding suitable video segments based on a short

natural language query,

I Linking: defining links to other relevant video segments inthe collection.

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

ediaEval 2012 Brave New Task:Search and Hyperlinking

I Use Scenario:I A user is searching for a known segment in a video

collection.I Furthermore, because the information in the segment might

not be sufficient for his information need, s/he wants tohave links to other related video segments, which may helpto satisfy information need related to this video.

I Sub-tasks:I Search: finding suitable video segments based on a short

natural language query,I Linking: defining links to other relevant video segments in

the collection.

Comparing Retrieval Effectiveness of Alternative Content Segmentation Methods for Internet Video Search

ediaEval 2012

Thank you for your attention!

Welcome to MediaEval 2012! http://multimediaeval.org