PIDRo: Parallel Isomeric Attention with Dynamic Routing for Text-Video Retrieval
Text-video retrieval is a fundamental task with high practical value in multi-modal research. Inspired by the great success of pre-trained image-text models with large-scale data, such as CLIP, many methods are proposed to transfer the strong representation learning capability of CLIP to text-video retrieval. However, due to the modality difference between videos and images, how to effectively adapt CLIP to the video domain is still underexplored. In this paper, we investigate this problem from two aspects. First, we enhance the transferred image encoder of CLIP for fine-grained video understanding in a seamless fashion. Second, we conduct fine-grained contrast between videos and texts from both model improvement and loss design. Particularly, we propose a fine-grained contrastive model equipped with parallel isomeric attention and dynamic routing, namely PIDRo, for text-video retrieval. The parallel isomeric attention module is used as the video encoder, which consists of two parallel branches modeling the spatial-temporal information of videos from both patch and frame levels. The dynamic routing module is constructed to enhance the text encoder of CLIP, generating informative word representations by distributing the fine-grained information to the related word tokens within a sentence. Such model design provides us with informative patch, frame and word representations. We then conduct token-wise interaction upon them. With the enhanced encoders and the token-wise loss, we are able to achieve finer-grained text-video alignment and more accurate retrieval. PIDRo obtains state-of-the-art performance over various text-video retrieval benchmarks, including MSR-VTT, MSVD, LSMDC, DiDeMo and ActivityNet.
PDF Abstract
MSR-VTT
MSVD
DiDeMo
| Task | Dataset | Model | Metric Name | Metric Value | Global Rank | Benchmark |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Video Retrieval | MSR-VTT-1kA | PIDRo | text-to-video Mean Rank | 10.7 | # 5 | |
| text-to-video R@1 | 55.9 | # 3 | ||||
| text-to-video R@5 | 79.8 | # 4 | ||||
| text-to-video R@10 | 87.6 | # 5 | ||||
| text-to-video Median Rank | 1.0 | # 1 | ||||
| video-to-text R@1 | 54.5 | # 5 | ||||
| video-to-text R@5 | 78,3 | # 22 | ||||
| video-to-text R@10 | 87.3 | # 4 | ||||
| video-to-text Median Rank | 1.0 | # 1 | ||||
| video-to-text Mean Rank | 7.5 | # 5 |
