Improving Video-Text Retrieval by Multi-Stream Corpus Alignment and Dual Softmax Loss

9 Sep 2021  ·  Xing Cheng, Hezheng Lin, Xiangyu Wu, Fan Yang, Dong Shen ·

Employing large-scale pre-trained model CLIP to conduct video-text retrieval task (VTR) has become a new trend, which exceeds previous VTR methods. Though, due to the heterogeneity of structures and contents between video and text, previous CLIP-based models are prone to overfitting in the training phase, resulting in relatively poor retrieval performance. In this paper, we propose a multi-stream Corpus Alignment network with single gate Mixture-of-Experts (CAMoE) and a novel Dual Softmax Loss (DSL) to solve the two heterogeneity. The CAMoE employs Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) to extract multi-perspective video representations, including action, entity, scene, etc., then align them with the corresponding part of the text. In this stage, we conduct massive explorations towards the feature extraction module and feature alignment module. DSL is proposed to avoid the one-way optimum-match which occurs in previous contrastive methods. Introducing the intrinsic prior of each pair in a batch, DSL serves as a reviser to correct the similarity matrix and achieves the dual optimal match. DSL is easy to implement with only one-line code but improves significantly. The results show that the proposed CAMoE and DSL are of strong efficiency, and each of them is capable of achieving State-of-The-Art (SOTA) individually on various benchmarks such as MSR-VTT, MSVD, and LSMDC. Further, with both of them, the performance is advanced to a big extend, surpassing the previous SOTA methods for around 4.6\% R@1 in MSR-VTT.

PDF Abstract

Results from the Paper


Ranked #9 on Video Retrieval on MSVD (using extra training data)

     Get a GitHub badge
Task Dataset Model Metric Name Metric Value Global Rank Uses Extra
Training Data
Result Benchmark
Video Retrieval ActivityNet CAMoE text-to-video R@1 51.0 # 14
text-to-video R@5 77.7 # 12
text-to-video R@10 87.6 # 11
text-to-video Median Rank 1 # 1
text-to-video Mean Rank 6.3 # 6
Video Retrieval DiDeMo CAMoE text-to-video R@1 43.8 # 31
text-to-video R@5 71.4 # 29
text-to-video R@10 79.9 # 30
text-to-video Median Rank 2.0 # 9
text-to-video Mean Rank 16.3 # 11
video-to-text R@1 45.5 # 14
video-to-text R@10 80.5 # 11
video-to-text Median Rank 2 # 5
video-to-text Mean Rank 10.2 # 7
Video Retrieval LSMDC CAMoE text-to-video R@1 25.9 # 15
text-to-video R@5 46.1 # 13
text-to-video R@10 53.7 # 15
text-to-video Mean Rank 54.4 # 7
Video Retrieval MSR-VTT CAMoE text-to-video R@1 32.9 # 21
text-to-video R@5 58.3 # 19
text-to-video R@10 68.4 # 19
text-to-video Mean Rank 42.6 # 2
text-to-video Median Rank 3 # 1
video-to-text R@1 59.8 # 3
video-to-text R@5 86.2 # 1
video-to-text R@10 92.8 # 1
video-to-text Median Rank 1 # 1
video-to-text Mean Rank 3.8 # 1
Video Retrieval MSR-VTT-1kA CAMoE text-to-video Mean Rank 12.4 # 11
text-to-video R@1 48.8 # 22
text-to-video R@5 75.6 # 16
text-to-video R@10 85.3 # 11
text-to-video Median Rank 2 # 10
video-to-text R@1 50.3 # 8
video-to-text R@5 74.6 # 11
video-to-text R@10 83.8 # 14
video-to-text Median Rank 2 # 7
video-to-text Mean Rank 9.9 # 16
Video Retrieval MSVD CAMoE text-to-video R@1 51.8 # 9
text-to-video R@5 87.6 # 1
text-to-video R@10 87.6 # 9
text-to-video Median Rank 1 # 1
text-to-video Mean Rank 8.9 # 8
video-to-text R@1 69.3 # 6
video-to-text R@5 90.6 # 6
video-to-text R@10 94.6 # 7
video-to-text Median Rank 1 # 1
video-to-text Mean Rank 3.1 # 4

Methods