Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Attribute Learning for Understanding Unstructured Social Activity Yanwei Fu, Timothy M. Hospedales, Tao Xiang, and Shaogang Gong School of EECS, Queen.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Attribute Learning for Understanding Unstructured Social Activity Yanwei Fu, Timothy M. Hospedales, Tao Xiang, and Shaogang Gong School of EECS, Queen."— Presentation transcript:

1 Attribute Learning for Understanding Unstructured Social Activity Yanwei Fu, Timothy M. Hospedales, Tao Xiang, and Shaogang Gong School of EECS, Queen Mary University of London, UK Presented by Amr El-Labban VGG Reading Group, Dec 5 th 2012

2 Contributions 1. Unstructured social activity attribute (USAA) dataset 2. Semi-latent attribute space 3. Topic model based attribute learning

3 Objective  Automatic classification of unstructured group social activity  Use an attribute based approach  Start with sparse, user defined attributes  Add latent ones  Learn jointly

4 Dataset  1500 videos, 8 classes  69 visual/audio attributes manually labelled  Weak labelling  SIFT, STIP and MFCC features used  Data available (features, attributes, YouTube IDs)

5 Classification

6 Semi-Latent Attribute Space  Space consisting of:  User defined attributes  Discriminative latent attributes  Non-discriminative (background) latent attributes

7 Topic modelling P(x|d) d x x – low level features (‘words’) y – attributes (‘topics’) d – ‘documents’ = P(x|y) y x P(y|d) d y

8 Latent Dirichlet Allocation y x x – low level features y – attributes (user defined and latent) θ – attribute distribution φ – word distribution α, β – Dirichlet parameters

9 Aside: Dirichlet disribution  Distribution over multinomial distributions  Parameterised by α α = (6,2,2) α = (6,2,6) α = (3,7,5) α = (2,3,4)

10 Aside: Dirichlet disribution

11 Latent Dirichlet Allocation y x x – low level features y – attributes (user defined and latent) θ – attribute distribution φ – word distribution α, β – Dirichlet parameters

12 Latent Dirichlet Allocation y x Generative model for each document: Choose θ ~ Dir(α) Choose φ ~ Dir(β) for each word: Choosey ~ Multinomial(θ) Choosex ~ Multinomial(φ y )

13 Latent Dirichlet Allocation y x

14 y x

15 SLAS  User defined part  Per instance prior on α.  Set to zero when attribute isn’t present in ground truth  Latent part  First half “class conditional”  One α per class.  All but one constrained to zero.  Second half “background”  Unconstrained

16 Classification  Use SLAS posterior to map from raw data to attributes  Use standard classifier (logistic regression) from attributes to classes

17 N-shot transfer learning  Split data into two partitions – source and target  Learn attribute models on source data  Use N examples from target to learn attribute-class mapping

18 Zero-shot learning  Detect novel class  Manually defined attribute-class “prototype”  Improve with self-training algorithm: 1. Infer attributes for novel data 2. NN matching in user defined space against protoype 3. For each novel class: a) Find top K matches b) Train new prototype in full attribute space (mean of top K) 4. NN matching in the full space

19 Experiments  Compare three models:  Direct: KNN or SVM on raw data  SVM-UD+LR: SVM to map raw data to attributes, LR maps attributes to classes  SLAS+LR: SLAS to map raw data to attributes, LR learns classes based on user-defined and class conditional attributes.

20 MASSIVE HACK  “The UD part of the SLAS topic profile is estimating the same thing as the SVM attribute classifiers, however the latter are slightly more reliable due to being discriminatively optimised. As input to LR, we therefore actually use the SVM attribute classier outputs in conjunction with the latent part of our topic profile.”

21 Results - classification  SLAS+LR better as number if training data and user defined attributes decreases  Copes with 25% wrong attribute bits

22 Results - classification  KNN and SVM have vertical bands – consistent misclassification

23 Results – N-shot transfer learning  Vary number of user defined attributes  SVM+LR cannot cope with zero attributes

24 Results – Zero-shot transfer learning  Two cases:  Continuous prototype – mean attribute profile  Binary prototype – thresholded mean  Tested without background latent attributes (SLAS(NF))

25 Conclusion  Augmenting SVM and user defined attributes with latent ones definitely helps.  Experimental hacks make it hard to say how good the model really is…


Download ppt "Attribute Learning for Understanding Unstructured Social Activity Yanwei Fu, Timothy M. Hospedales, Tao Xiang, and Shaogang Gong School of EECS, Queen."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google