Visually grounded learning of keyword prediction from untranscribed speech

During language acquisition, infants have the benefit of visual cues to ground spoken language. Robots similarly have access to audio and visual sensors. Recent work has shown that images and spoken captions can be mapped into a meaningful common space, allowing images to be retrieved using speech and vice versa. In this setting of images paired with untranscribed spoken captions, we consider whether computer vision systems can be used to obtain textual labels for the speech. Concretely, we use an image-to-words multi-label visual classifier to tag images with soft textual labels, and then train a neural network to map from the speech to these soft targets. We show that the resulting speech system is able to predict which words occur in an utterance---acting as a spoken bag-of-words classifier---without seeing any parallel speech and text. We find that the model often confuses semantically related words, e.g. "man" and "person", making it even more effective as a semantic keyword spotter.Comment: 5 pages, 3 figures, 5 tables; small updates, added link to code; accepted to Interspeech 201

What's Cookin'? Interpreting Cooking Videos using Text, Speech and Vision

We present a novel method for aligning a sequence of instructions to a video of someone carrying out a task. In particular, we focus on the cooking domain, where the instructions correspond to the recipe. Our technique relies on an HMM to align the recipe steps to the (automatically generated) speech transcript. We then refine this alignment using a state-of-the-art visual food detector, based on a deep convolutional neural network. We show that our technique outperforms simpler techniques based on keyword spotting. It also enables interesting applications, such as automatically illustrating recipes with keyframes, and searching within a video for events of interest.Comment: To appear in NAACL 201

Zero-shot keyword spotting for visual speech recognition in-the-wild

Visual keyword spotting (KWS) is the problem of estimating whether a text query occurs in a given recording using only video information. This paper focuses on visual KWS for words unseen during training, a real-world, practical setting which so far has received no attention by the community. To this end, we devise an end-to-end architecture comprising (a) a state-of-the-art visual feature extractor based on spatiotemporal Residual Networks, (b) a grapheme-to-phoneme model based on sequence-to-sequence neural networks, and (c) a stack of recurrent neural networks which learn how to correlate visual features with the keyword representation. Different to prior works on KWS, which try to learn word representations merely from sequences of graphemes (i.e. letters), we propose the use of a grapheme-to-phoneme encoder-decoder model which learns how to map words to their pronunciation. We demonstrate that our system obtains very promising visual-only KWS results on the challenging LRS2 database, for keywords unseen during training. We also show that our system outperforms a baseline which addresses KWS via automatic speech recognition (ASR), while it drastically improves over other recently proposed ASR-free KWS methods.Comment: Accepted at ECCV-201

Multimedia information technology and the annotation of video

The state of the art in multimedia information technology has not progressed to the point where a single solution is available to meet all reasonable needs of documentalists and users of video archives. In general, we do not have an optimistic view of the usability of new technology in this domain, but digitization and digital power can be expected to cause a small revolution in the area of video archiving. The volume of data leads to two views of the future: on the pessimistic side, overload of data will cause lack of annotation capacity, and on the optimistic side, there will be enough data from which to learn selected concepts that can be deployed to support automatic annotation. At the threshold of this interesting era, we make an attempt to describe the state of the art in technology. We sample the progress in text, sound, and image processing, as well as in machine learning

Keyword localisation in untranscribed speech using visually grounded speech models

Keyword localisation is the task of finding where in a speech utterance a given query keyword occurs. We investigate to what extent keyword localisation is possible using a visually grounded speech (VGS) model. VGS models are trained on unlabelled images paired with spoken captions. These models are therefore self-supervised -- trained without any explicit textual label or location information. To obtain training targets, we first tag training images with soft text labels using a pretrained visual classifier with a fixed vocabulary. This enables a VGS model to predict the presence of a written keyword in an utterance, but not its location. We consider four ways to equip VGS models with localisations capabilities. Two of these -- a saliency approach and input masking -- can be applied to an arbitrary prediction model after training, while the other two -- attention and a score aggregation approach -- are incorporated directly into the structure of the model. Masked-based localisation gives some of the best reported localisation scores from a VGS model, with an accuracy of 57% when the system knows that a keyword occurs in an utterance and need to predict its location. In a setting where localisation is performed after detection, an $F_1$ of 25% is achieved, and in a setting where a keyword spotting ranking pass is first performed, we get a localisation P@10 of 32%. While these scores are modest compared to the idealised setting with unordered bag-of-word-supervision (from transcriptions), these models do not receive any textual or location supervision. Further analyses show that these models are limited by the first detection or ranking pass. Moreover, individual keyword localisation performance is correlated with the tagging performance from the visual classifier. We also show qualitatively how and where semantic mistakes occur, e.g. that the model locates surfer when queried with ocean.Comment: 10 figures, 5 table