Rudder: A Cross Lingual Video and Text Retrieval Dataset

9 Mar 2021  ยท  Jayaprakash A, abhishek, Rishabh Dabral, Ganesh Ramakrishnan, Preethi Jyothi ยท

Video retrieval using natural language queries requires learning semantically meaningful joint embeddings between the text and the audio-visual input. Often, such joint embeddings are learnt using pairwise (or triplet) contrastive loss objectives which cannot give enough attention to 'difficult-to-retrieve' samples during training. This problem is especially pronounced in data-scarce settings where the data is relatively small (10% of the large scale MSR-VTT) to cover the rather complex audio-visual embedding space. In this context, we introduce Rudder - a multilingual video-text retrieval dataset that includes audio and textual captions in Marathi, Hindi, Tamil, Kannada, Malayalam and Telugu. Furthermore, we propose to compensate for data scarcity by using domain knowledge to augment supervision. To this end, in addition to the conventional three samples of a triplet (anchor, positive, and negative), we introduce a fourth term - a partial - to define a differential margin based partialorder loss. The partials are heuristically sampled such that they semantically lie in the overlap zone between the positives and the negatives, thereby resulting in broader embedding coverage. Our proposals consistently outperform the conventional max-margin and triplet losses and improve the state-of-the-art on MSR-VTT and DiDeMO datasets. We report benchmark results on Rudder while also observing significant gains using the proposed partial order loss, especially when the language specific retrieval models are jointly trained by availing the cross-lingual alignment across the language-specific datasets.

PDF Abstract

Results from the Paper


Task Dataset Model Metric Name Metric Value Global Rank Result Benchmark
Video Retrieval Charades-STA PO Loss text-to-video R@1 3.6 # 1
text-to-video R@10 15.9 # 1
text-to-video Median Rank 77 # 1
text-to-video Mean Rank 162.3 # 1
video-to-text R@1 3.2 # 1
video-to-text R@10 14.9 # 1
video-to-text Median Rank 83 # 1
video-to-text Mean Rank 164.6 # 1
Video Retrieval DiDeMo PO Loss text-to-video R@1 16.3 # 37
text-to-video R@10 56.5 # 34
text-to-video Median Rank 8 # 20
text-to-video Mean Rank 40.2 # 13
video-to-text R@1 15 # 15
video-to-text R@10 54.9 # 13
video-to-text Median Rank 8 # 10
video-to-text Mean Rank 39.6 # 11
Video Retrieval RUDDER PO Loss text-to-video R@1 4.48 # 1
text-to-video R@5 13.47 # 1
text-to-video R@10 20.02 # 1
text-to-video R@50 42.49 # 1
text-to-video Mean Rank 66 # 1
text-to-video Median Rank 153.14 # 1
video-to-text R@1 3.87 # 1
video-to-text R@5 12.13 # 1
video-to-text R@10 19.09 # 1
video-to-text Mean Rank 73 # 1
video-to-text Median Rank 151.63 # 1

Methods


No methods listed for this paper. Add relevant methods here