Contextual Wisdom Social Relations and Correlations for Multimedia Event Annotation Amit Zunjarwad,...
-
date post
18-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Contextual Wisdom Social Relations and Correlations for Multimedia Event Annotation Amit Zunjarwad,...
Contextual Wisdom
Social Relations and Correlations for Multimedia Event Annotation
Amit Zunjarwad, Hari Sundaram and Lexing Xie
Talk Outline
Observations
Events
Generalization:Sum of Partial Observations
Similarity, Co-Occurrence and Trust
@I2R April 18, 2023 3
Experiments:compare against SVM
Conclusions
The pool statistics reveal a power law distribution• Less than 11% of the tags have more than 10 photos• There are not enough instances to learn most of the
concepts! The global flickr pool is interesting:
April 18, 2023 6@NUS
Learnability
The pool statistics reveal a power law distribution• Less than 11% of the photos have more than 10
instances• There are not enough instances to learn most of the
concepts! The global flickr pool is interesting: • Most of the tags have over 100 instances• Photos reveal very high visual diversity
The Power law is a fundamental property of online networks – cannot be wished away.
April 18, 2023 8@NUS
Learnability
Singapore People Walking Orchard rd. After MRT Experimenting Walking Day Outdoor..
April 18, 2023 9@NUS
Scalability
The assumption of consensual semantics Search for “yamagata”
April 18, 2023 10@NUS
The Role of context
An event refers to a real-world occurrence, spread over space and time.
Observations form event meta data [Westermann / Jain 2007]• Images / text / sounds describe events
April 18, 2023 13@NUS
Defining Events
when
where
who
what
author
image
Event context refers to the set of attributes that help in understanding the semantics • Images / Who / Where / When / What / Why / How
Context is always application dependent • Ubiquitous computing community – location, identity
and time are main considerations
April 18, 2023 14@NUS
Context
[Mani and Sundaram 2007]
Event archival – events involve people, places and artifacts
Exploit different forms of knowledge: • (Global) Similarity – media, events, people. • (Personal) Co-occurrence – what are the joint statistics
of occurrence?• (Social) Trust – determining whom to trust for effective
annotation?
April 18, 2023 15@NUS
Four Problems
A bottom up approach • Edge, color and texture histograms for images. • Rely on ConceptNet for text tags
Why ConceptNet and not WordNet?• Expands on pure lexical terms, to compound terms –
“buy food”• Expands on number of relations – from three to twenty• Contains practical knowledge – we can infer that a
student is near a library.
April 18, 2023 17@NUS
Event similarity
ConceptNet provides three functions:• GetContext(node): the neighborhood of the concept “book” includes “knowledge”, “library”
• GetAnalogousConcepts(node): concepts that share incoming relations; analogous concepts for the concept “people” are “human”, “person”, “man”
• FindPathsBetweenNodes(node1,node2) – returns a set of paths.
Our similarity measure is built using these functions.
April 18, 2023 18@NUS
A base similarity measure
The similarity between two concepts (e,f) is defined as follows:
We current use a uniform weighting on all three as the composite measure
April 18, 2023 19@NUS
Concept similarity
fe
fCeC
eA fA
context
analogous
path based1
1 1( , )
N
pi i
s e fN h
The distance between two concept sets is a modified Haussdorf similarity.
April 18, 2023 20@NUS
Computing similarity between sets
A
B
| |
1
1( , | ) max{ ( , )}
| |
A
H k ii
k
S A B m m a bA
Similarity between facets are computed using a weighted sum of frequency and the concept similarity measure:
Time distance is based on text tags, not actual time data – allows for temporal descriptions as “summer”, “holidays” etc.
Only frequency is used for “who” facet.April 18, 2023 21@NUS
Facet similarity (4w)
1 21 2 1 2
2
1 | |( , ) , | ,
2 | | H
L Ls L L S L L CS
L
Color, texture and edges are computed• 166 bin HSV color histogram• 71 bin edge histogram• 3 texture features
Euclidean distance on the composite feature vector.
The distance between two events is then a weighted sum of distances across all event facets.
April 18, 2023 22@NUS
Image facet similarity
The concept co-occurrences are just frequency counts.
(i= fun , j = new york) then the index (i,j) contains the number of occurrences of this tuple.
Notes:• Each concept is given a globally unique index• Co-occurrence matrixes are locally compact
Each user k, has a co-occurrence matrix Mck
associated with the user.
April 18, 2023 25@NUS
Statistics are computed per person
Narrow understanding of “trust” a priori value is important Computing trust:• Compute event-event similarity
Trust propagation• Biased PageRank algorithm
• Trust vectors are row normalized
April 18, 2023 27@NUS
Activity based trust
activity matrix apriori
(1 ) k t = A t + p
The framework is event centric We know:
How to combine the three?
April 18, 2023 29@NUS
A review of what we know
similarity co-occurrence trust vectors
global personal social
1. Compute the social network trust vector (t) for the current user.
2. Compute the trusted, global co-occurrence matrix, for all tuples.
3. Iterate:
April 18, 2023 30@NUS
details
1
( , ) ( ) ( , ),N
k kc c
i
a b t i a b
M M
who where whatwhen image event
query
,
,c
s
y M x q
x M y q
Developed and event based archival system
8 graduate students 58 events, 250 images,
over two weeks SVM – baseline
comparison Two cases• Uniform trust (global)• Personal trust
April 18, 2023 32@NUS
Details
Training is difficult – very small pool.• Modified bagging strategy • Train five symmetric classifiers• Pick one which maximizes the F-score
April 18, 2023 33@NUS
SVM training
Global Case:• 31 classifiers (who:8, when: 6, where: 10, what: 7)• Minimum number of images: 10 • Tested on 50 images (why?)
April 18, 2023 34@NUS
Uniform trust
Facets SVM CM (uniform)
H M X U H M
Who 13 23 5 9 22 28
When 11 20 6 13 24 26
Where 12 19 3 16 23 27
What 13 21 8 8 31 19
Event 10 12 22 6 22 28
H Hits
M Misses
X Unknown
U Undecidable
Trained classifiers per person• Very small pool• Min images – 5• 28 classifiers (who:9, when: 4, where: 6, what: 9)
April 18, 2023 35@NUS
Personal Network
Facets SVM CM (network)
H M X U H M
Who 45 81 62 62 183 67
When 51 96 73 30 167 83
Where 62 76 59 53 179 71
What 72 89 23 66 204 46
Events 0 0 250 0 153 97
H Hits
M Misses
X Unknown
U Undecidable
An event based annotation system• Media are event meta-data• Issues: learnability, scalability, context
Employ three kinds of knowledge• Global – conceptnet, image similarity• Personal – statistical co-occurrence • Social – trust
Recommendations• Employ iterative schemes (HITS / PageRank)
Results:• Outperform SVM in small pools
April 18, 2023 42@NUS
summary
Power law tag distribution• Data pool will remain small for most tags• Fundamental issue
Participatory knowledge is powerful – trust within context is important issue.
Future work: • Careful math analysis of coupling equations• Event structure / relationships need to be incorporated • Multi-source (email / Calendar / IM / blogs)
integration.
April 18, 2023 43@NUS
Conclusions