O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.

PoR_evaluation_measure_acm_mm_2020

Slides for the paper "Performance over Random: A robust evaluation protocol for video summarization methods", authored by E. Apostolidis, E. Adamantidou, A. Metsai, V. Mezaris, and I. Patras, published in the Proceedings of ACM Multimedia 2020 (ACM MM), Seattle, WA, USA, Oct. 2020.

  • Seja o primeiro a comentar

  • Seja a primeira pessoa a gostar disto

PoR_evaluation_measure_acm_mm_2020

  1. 1. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project Title of presentation Subtitle Name of presenter Date Performance over Random: A Robust Evaluation Protocol for Video Summarization Methods E. Apostolidis1,2, E. Adamantidou1, A. I. Metsai1, V. Mezaris1, I. Patras2 1 CERTH-ITI, Thermi - Thessaloniki, Greece 2 School of EECS, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK 28th ACM Int. Conf. on Multimedia Seattle, WA, USA, October 2020
  2. 2. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project Outline 2  What’s the goal of video summarization?  How to evaluate video summarization?  Established evaluation protocol and its weaknesses  Proposed approach: Performance over Random  Experiments  Conclusions
  3. 3. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 3 Video summary: a short visual synopsis that encapsulates the flow of the story and the essential parts of the full-length video Original video 1. Video storyboard What’s the goal of video summarization? 2. Video skim Summary
  4. 4. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project How to evaluate video summarization? 4  An evaluation approach along with a benchmark dataset for video summarization was introduced in [11]  SumMe dataset (https://gyglim.github.io/me/vsum/index.html#benchmark)  25 videos capturing multiple events (e.g. cooking and sports)  video length: 1 to 6 min  annotation: fragment-based video summaries (15-18 per video) Evaluating video skims [11] M. Gygli, H. Grabner, H. Riemenschneider, L. Van Gool. 2014. Creating Summaries from User Videos. In Proc. of the 2014 European Conf. on Computer Vision (ECCV), D. Fleet, T. Pajdla, B. Schiele, T. Tuytelaars (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 505–520.
  5. 5. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project How to evaluate video summarization? 5  Agreement between automatically-generated (A) and user-defined (U) summary is expressed by the F-Score (%), with (P)recision and (R)ecall measuring the temporal overlap (∩)  Typical metrics for computing Precision and Recall at the frame-level  80% of video samples are used for training and the remaining 20% for testing  Typically, the generated summary should not exceed 15% of the video length Evaluating video skims
  6. 6. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project How to evaluate video summarization? 6  This protocol was used to evaluate summarization based on another benchmark dataset [12]  TVSum dataset (https://github.com/yalesong/tvsum)  50 videos from 10 categories of TRECVid MED task  video length: 1 to 11 min  annotation: frame-level importance scores (20 per video) Evaluating video skims [12] Y. Song, J. Vallmitjana, A. Stent, A. Jaimes. 2015. TVSum: Summarizing Web Videos Using Titles. In Proc. of the 2015 IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 5179–5187.
  7. 7. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project Established evaluation protocol 7  Mostly used benchmark datasets: SumMe and TVSum  Alignment between automatically-created and user-defined summaries quantified by F-Score  Max of the computed values is kept for SumMe; Average of these values is kept for TVSum  Summary length should be less than 15% of the video duration  80% of data is used for training (plus validation) and the remaining 20% for testing  Most works perform evaluations using 5 different randomly-created data splits and report the average performance  Though variations of this setting (1-split, 10-splits, “few”-splits, 5-fold cross validation) exist Typical setting in bibliography
  8. 8. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 8 Setting of the study Studying the established protocol  Considered aspects  Representativeness of results when evaluation relies on a small set of randomly-created splits  Reliability of performance comparisons that use different data splits for each algorithm  Used algorithms  Supervised dppLSTM [14] and VASNet [15] methods  Unsupervised DR-DSN [16], SUM-GAN-sl [17] and SUM-GAN-AAE [18] methods  First experiment: performance evaluation using a fixed set of 5 randomly-created data splits of SumMe and TVSum  Second experiment: performance evaluation using a fixed set of 50 randomly-created data splits of SumMe and TVSum  Plus: comparison with the reported values in the corresponding papers
  9. 9. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 9  Noticeable difference of evaluation results on 5 and 50 splits  Differences between 5 and 50 splits are often larger than differences between methods  Methods' rankings are different on 5 and 50 splits; plus they do not match the ranking based on the reported results Outcomes Values denote F-Score (%) Rep. is the reported value from the relevant paper Best score → bold, Second-best → underlined Studying the established protocol
  10. 10. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 10  Noticeable difference of evaluation results on 5 and 50 splits  Differences between 5 and 50 splits are often larger than differences between methods  Methods' rankings are different on 5 and 50 splits; plus they do not match the ranking based on the reported results Outcomes Values denote F-Score (%) Rep. is the reported value from the relevant paper Best score → bold, Second-best → underlined Serious lack of reliability of comparisons that rely on a limited number of data splits Studying the established protocol Limited representativeness of results when the evaluation relies on a few data splits
  11. 11. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 11 Studying the established protocol  Noticeable variability of performance over the set of splits  Variability follows a quite similar pattern for all methods
  12. 12. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 12 Studying the established protocol  Noticeable variability of performance over the set of splits  Variability follows a quite similar pattern for all methods Hypothesis: different levels of difficulty for the used splits
  13. 13. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 13 How to mitigate the observed weaknesses?  Check potential association between the method’s performance and a measure of how challenging each data split is  Use these data splits and examine the performance of:  Random Summarizer  Average Human Summarizer Reduce the impact of the used data splits
  14. 14. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 14 Estimate random performance For a given video of a test set: 1) Random frame-level importance scores based on a uniform distribution
  15. 15. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 15 Estimate random performance For a given video of a test set: 1) Random frame-level importance scores based on a uniform distribution 2) Fragment-level importance scores
  16. 16. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 16 Estimate random performance For a given video of a test set: 1) Random frame-level importance scores based on a uniform distribution 2) Fragment-level importance scores 3) Summary of the random summarizer Knapsack
  17. 17. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 17 Estimate random performance For a given video of a test set: 4) Compare the random summary with the user-generated summaries
  18. 18. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 18 Estimate random performance For a given video of a test set: 4) Compare the random summary with the user-generated summaries F-Score1
  19. 19. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 19 Estimate random performance For a given video of a test set: 4) Compare the random summary with the user-generated summaries F-Score1 F-Score2
  20. 20. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 20 Estimate random performance For a given video of a test set: 4) Compare the random summary with the user-generated summaries F-Score1 F-ScoreN F-Score2
  21. 21. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 21 Estimate random performance For a given video of a test set: 4) Compare the random summary with the user-generated summaries F-Score1 F-Score2 F-ScoreN F-Score for Video #1 =max{F-Score}i=1 N =avg{F-Score}i=1 N
  22. 22. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 22 Estimate random performance For the entire test set of a data split: 4) Compare the random summary with the user-generated summaries F-Score1 F-Score2 F-ScoreN F-Score for Video #1 F-Score for Video #M *** Calculate F-Score for Video #M F-Score for test set Average
  23. 23. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 23 Estimate random performance For the entire test set of a data split: 4) Compare the random summary with the user-generated summaries F-Score1 F-Score2 F-ScoreN F-Score for Video #1 F-Score for Video #M *** Calculate F-Score for Video #M F-Score for test set Average x 100 times
  24. 24. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 24 Estimate average human performance Performance of User #1 on a given video of a test set:
  25. 25. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 25 Estimate average human performance Performance of User #1 on a given video of a test set: F-Score12
  26. 26. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 26 Estimate average human performance Performance of User #1 on a given video of a test set: F-Score12 F-Score13
  27. 27. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 27 Estimate average human performance Performance of User #1 on a given video of a test set: F-Score12 F-Score13 F-Score1N
  28. 28. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 28 Estimate average human performance Performance of User #1 on a given video of a test set: F-Score12 F-Score13 F-Score1N F-Score1User 1 -
  29. 29. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 29 Estimate average human performance Performance of User #N on a given video of a test set: F-Score12 F-Score13 F-Score1N F-Score1 F-ScoreN2 F-ScoreN3 F-ScoreN(N-1) F-ScoreNUser 1 - User N -
  30. 30. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 30 Estimate average human performance Calculate the average human performance on a given video of a test set: F-Score12 F-Score13 F-Score1N F-Score1 F-ScoreN2 F-ScoreN3 F-ScoreN(N-1) F-ScoreNUser 1 - User N - Average F-Score for Video #1
  31. 31. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 31 Estimate average human performance Calculate the average human performance on the entire test set: F-Score12 F-Score13 F-Score1N F-Score1 F-ScoreN2 F-ScoreN3 F-ScoreN(N-1) F-ScoreNUser 1 - User N - Average F-Score for Video #1 F-Score for Video #M *** Calculate F-Score for Video #M
  32. 32. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 32 Estimate average human performance Calculate the average human performance on the entire test set: F-Score12 F-Score13 F-Score1N F-Score1 F-ScoreN2 F-ScoreN3 F-ScoreN(N-1) F-ScoreNUser 1 - User N - Average F-Score for Video #1 F-Score for Video #M *** Calculate F-Score for Video #M Final F-Score Average
  33. 33. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 33 Updated performance curve  Noticeable variance in the performance of random and human summarizer Different levels of difficulty for the used splits
  34. 34. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 34 How to decide on the most suitable measure?  Covariance: measure of the joint variability of two random variables For two jointly distributed real-valued random variables X and Y with finite second moments:  Pearson Correlation Coefficient: normalized version of Covariance that indicates (via its magnitude) the strength of the linear relation (values in [0,1]) Correlation with the performance of random and human summarizers
  35. 35. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 35 How to decide on the most suitable measure? Correlation with the performance of random and human summarizers In terms of performance there is a clearly stronger correlation of the tested methods with the random summarizer
  36. 36. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 36 Proposed approach: Performance over Random (PoR) Core idea  Estimate the difficulty of a data split by computing the performance of a random summarizer  Exploit this information when using the data split to assess a video summarization algorithm Main targets  Reduce the impact of the used data splits in the performance evaluation  Increase the representativeness of evaluation outcomes  Enhance the reliability of comparisons based on different data splits
  37. 37. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 37 Proposed approach: Performance over Random (PoR) Computing steps For a given summarization method and a data split: 1) Compute Ƒ, the performance of a random summarizer for this split
  38. 38. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 38 Proposed approach: Performance over Random (PoR) Computing steps For a given summarization method and a data split: 1) Compute Ƒ, the performance of a random summarizer for this split 2) Compute the method's performance S on the data split F-Score (%)
  39. 39. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 39 Proposed approach: Performance over Random (PoR) Computing steps For a given summarization method and a data split: 1) Compute Ƒ, the performance of a random summarizer for this split 2) Compute the method's performance S on the data split 3) Compute "Performance over Random" as: F-Score (%) based on the established evaluation protocol 𝑃𝑜𝑅 = 𝑆 Ƒ ∙ 100 PoR < 100 : performance worse than baseline (random) PoR > 100 : performance better than baseline (random)
  40. 40. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 40 Experiments Representativeness of performance evaluation  Considered evaluation approaches:  Estimate performance using F-Score  Estimate performance using Performance over Random (PoR)  Estimate performance using Performance over Human (PoH)   Methods’ performance was examined on:  The large-scale setting of 50 fixed splits  20 fixed split-sets of 5 data splits each  Main focus: to which the extent the methods’ performance varies across the different data splits / split-sets  Used measure: Relative Standard Deviation (RSD)  𝑃𝑜𝑅 = 𝑆 H ∙ 100 𝑅𝑆𝐷(𝑥) = 𝑆𝑇𝐷(𝑥) Mean(x)
  41. 41. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 41 Experiments Representativeness of performance evaluation  Similar RSD values for F-Score and PoH in most cases  Remarkably smaller RSD values for PoR  Reminder: the results need to vary as little as possible!
  42. 42. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 42 Experiments Representativeness of performance evaluation  Similar RSD values for F-Score and PoH in most cases  Remarkably smaller RSD values for PoR  Reminder: the results need to vary as little as possible! PoR is more representative of an algorithm's performance
  43. 43. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 43 Experiments Reliability of performance comparisons  But the data splits can affect the evaluation outcomes!  Assess the robustness of each evaluation protocol to such comparisons  Simulate 20 such comparisons by creating 20 mixed split-sets  Rank methods from best to worst Generation of mixed split-sets  Performance comparisons in the bibliography rely on the reported values in the relevant papers and the used data splits are completely unknown
  44. 44. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 44 Experiments Reliability of performance comparisons  For each method, we studied: i) the overall ranking and ii) the variation of its ranking when using: i) 20 fixed split-sets and ii) 20 mixed split-sets  Variation quantified by computing the STD of a method’s ranking over the group of split-sets
  45. 45. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 45 Experiments Reliability of performance comparisons  For each method, we studied: i) the overall ranking and ii) the variation of its ranking when using: i) 20 fixed split-sets and ii) 20 mixed split-sets  Variation quantified by computing the STD of a method’s ranking over the group of split-sets
  46. 46. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 46 Experiments Reliability of performance comparisons  For each method, we studied: i) the overall ranking and ii) the variation of its ranking when using: i) 20 fixed split-sets and ii) 20 mixed split-sets  Variation quantified by computing the STD of a method’s ranking over the group of split-sets
  47. 47. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 47 Experiments Reliability of performance comparisons  For each method, we studied: i) the overall ranking and ii) the variation of its ranking when using: i) 20 fixed split-sets and ii) 20 mixed split-sets  Variation quantified by computing the STD of a method’s ranking over the group of split-sets PoR is much more robust than F-Score
  48. 48. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 48 Experiments Reliability of performance comparisons Using the same (fixed) split-sets  Same average ranking for all methods for both evaluation protocols Using different (mixed) split-sets:  Average ranking may differ as PoR considers the difficulty of each split-set  STD of average ranking differs significantly between F-Score and PoR  Lower STD values for PoR
  49. 49. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 49 Experiments Reliability of performance comparisons Using the same (fixed) split-sets  Same average ranking for all methods for both evaluation protocols Using different (mixed) split-sets:  Average ranking may differ as PoR considers the difficulty of each split-set  STD of average ranking differs significantly between F-Score and PoR  Lower STD values for PoR
  50. 50. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 50 Experiments Reliability of performance comparisons Using the same (fixed) split-sets  Same average ranking for all methods for both evaluation protocols Using different (mixed) split-sets:  Average ranking may differ as PoR considers the difficulty of each split-set  STD of average ranking differs significantly between F-Score and PoR  Lower STD values for PoR
  51. 51. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 51 Experiments Reliability of performance comparisons Using the same (fixed) split-sets  Same average ranking for all methods for both evaluation protocols Using different (mixed) split-sets:  Average ranking may differ as PoR considers the difficulty of each split-set  STD of average ranking differs significantly between F-Score and PoR  Lower STD values for PoR PoR is more suitable for comparing methods ran on different split-sets
  52. 52. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project  Early experiments documented the varying difficulty of the different randomly-created data splits of the established benchmarking datasets  Most SoA works use just a handful of different splits for evaluation  The varying difficulty significantly affects the evaluation results and the reliability of performance comparisons that rely on the reported values  New evaluation protocol: Performance Over Random (PoR), which takes under consideration estimates about the level of difficulty of each used data split  Experiments documented the increased robustness of PoR over F-Score and its suitability for comparing methods ran on different split-sets Conclusions 52
  53. 53. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 1. S. E. F. de Avila, A. da Luz Jr., A. de A. Araújo, M. Cord. 2008. VSUMM: An Approach for Automatic Video Summarization and Quantitative Evaluation. In Proc. of the 2008 XXI Brazilian Symposium on Computer Graphics and Image Processing. 103–110. 2. N. Ejaz, I. Mehmood, S. W. Baik. 2014. Feature Aggregation Based Visual Attention model for Video Summarization. Computers and Electrical Engineering 40, 3 (2014), 993 – 1005. Special Issue on Image and Video Processing. 3. V. Chasanis, A. Likas, N. Galatsanos. 2008. Efficient Video Shot Summarization Using an Enhanced Spectral Clustering Approach. In Proc. of the Artificial Neural Networks - ICANN 2008, V. Kurková, R. Neruda, J. Koutník (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 847–856. 4. S. E. F. de Avila, A. P. B. Lopes, A. da Luz Jr., A. de A. Araújo. 2011. VSUMM: A Mechanism Designed to Produce Static Video Summaries and a Novel Evaluation Method. Pattern Recognition Letters 32, 1 (Jan. 2011), 56–68. 5. J. Almeida, N. J. Leite, R. da S. Torres. 2012. VISON: VIdeo Summarization for ONline Applications. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 33, 4 (March 2012), 397–409. 6. E. J. Y. C. Cahuina G. C. Chavez. 2013. A New Method for Static Video Summarization Using Local Descriptors and Video Temporal Segmentation. In Proc. of the 2013 XXVI Conf. on Graphics, Patterns and Images. 226–233. 7. N. Ejaz, T. Bin Tariq, S. W. Baik. 2012. Adaptive Key Frame Extraction for Video Summarization Using an Aggregation Mechanism. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation 23, 7 (Oct. 2012), 1031–1040. 8. H. Jacob, F. L. Pádua, A. Lacerda, A. C. Pereira. 2017. A Video Summarization Approach Based on the Emulation of Bottom-up Mechanisms of Visual Attention. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 49, 2 (Oct. 2017), 193–211. 9. K. M. Mahmoud, N. M. Ghanem, M. A. Ismail. 2013. Unsupervised Video Summarization via Dynamic Modeling-Based Hierarchical Clustering. In Proc. of the 12th Int. Conf. on Machine Learning and Applications, Vol. 2. 303–308. 10. B. Gong, W.-L. Chao, K. Grauman, F. Sha. 2014. Diverse Sequential Subset Selection for Supervised Video Summarization. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27, Z. Ghahramani, M. Welling, C. Cortes, N. D. Lawrence, K. Q.Weinberger (Eds.). Curran Associates, Inc., 2069–2077. References 53
  54. 54. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 11. M. Gygli, H. Grabner, H. Riemenschneider, L. Van Gool. 2014. Creating Summaries from User Videos. In Proc. of the 2014 European Conf. on Computer Vision (ECCV), D. Fleet, T. Pajdla, B. Schiele, T. Tuytelaars (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 505–520. 12. Y. Song, J. Vallmitjana, A. Stent, A. Jaimes. 2015. TVSum: Summarizing Web Videos Using Titles. In Proc. of the 2015 IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 5179–5187. 13. E. Rahtu, M. Otani, Y. Nakahima, J. Heikkilä. 2019. Rethinking the Evaluation of Video Summaries. In Proc. of the 2019 IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 14. K. Zhang, W.-L. Chao, F. Sha, K. Grauman. 2016. Video Summarization with Long Short-Term Memory. In Proc. of the 2016 European Conf. on Computer Vision (ECCV), B. Leibe, J. Matas, N. Sebe, M. Welling (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 766–782. 15. J. Fajtl, H. S. Sokeh, V. Argyriou, D. Monekosso, P. Remagnino. 2019. Summarizing Videos with Attention. In Proc. of the 2018 Asian Conf. on Computer Vision (ACCV) Workshops, G. Carneiro, S. You (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 39–54. 16. K. Zhou, Y. Qiao, T. Xiang. 2018. Deep Reinforcement Learning for Unsupervised Video Summarization with Diversity-Representativeness Reward. In Proc. of the 2018 AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence 17. E. Apostolidis, A. I. Metsai, E. Adamantidou, V. Mezaris, I. Patras. 2019. A Stepwise, Label-based Approach for Improving the Adversarial Training in Unsupervised Video Summarization. In Proc. Of the 1st Int. Workshop on AI for Smart TV Content Production, Access and Delivery (Nice, France) (AI4TV ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 17–25. 18. E. Apostolidis, E. Adamantidou, A. I. Metsai, V. Mezaris, I. Patras. 2020. Unsupervised Video Summarization via Attention-Driven Adversarial Learning. In Proc. of the MultiMedia Modeling 2020, Y. M. Ro, W.-H. Cheng, J. Kim, W.-T. Chu, P. Cui, J.-W. Choi, M.-C. Hu, W. De Neve (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 492–504. References 54
  55. 55. retv-project.eu @ReTV_EU @ReTVproject retv-project retv_project 55 Thank you for your attention! Questions? Evlampios Apostolidis, apostolid@iti.gr Vasileios Mezaris, bmezaris@iti.gr Code and documentation publicly available at: https://github.com/e-apostolidis/PoR-Summarization-Measure This work was supported by the EUs Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement H2020-780656 ReTV. The work of Ioannis Patras has been supported by EPSRC under grant No. EP/R026424/1.

×