Sparsity based video classification using l1 minimization.

Shyam Mohan. CS12M1010.

Outline
Video Classification Features used Existing Technologies Idea Proposed-l1 minimization Parallel Research-OMP Comparison References

Video Classification
Grouping of videos into various classes. Classes may be decided depending on the grouping required.
Broad classifications
Movies Sports Commercials etc..

Narrower classifications
Thriller Horror Romance Comedy

Features Used
Text based
features
Subtitles Embedded text Transcripts of audio

Advantage is the large amount of existing work in text classification can be used.

Features Used
Audio based
Time domain features
RMS of signal energy Zero Crossing Rate Silence Ratio

Frequency domain features

Bandwidth Fundamental frequency Mel Frequency Cepstral Coefficients

Features Used
Visual based
Color based
HSV/RGB Histograms

Shot based
Uses shot transitions and average shot length.

Object /Motion based features

Face/Text detection Optical flow

Existing Technologies
Text based
Classification using keywords .

Audio based
Based on speech Based on background noise/music Variation in sounds

Visual based
Keyframes Motion based Lighting and color based

Idea Proposed-l1 minimization

A problem to find minimum l1 norm solution to an undetermined linear system. Used in compressed sensing. Also known as basis pursuit. min||x||1 s.t. Ax=b
Where ARmxn and b Rm with m<n

Algorithm to be used-Infeasible point Subgradient Algorithm.

Parallel Research-OMP
Orthogonal Matching Pursuit is another algorithm used to solve the same problem. An iterative greedy algorithm. Dictionary is constructed using most correlated Colum in each iteration.

Comparison
l1 minimization Orthogonal Matching Pursuit

Strongest guarantees of sparse recovery Once the measurement matrix satisfies the Restricted Isometry Condition. Based on linear programming. No clear idea of running time.

Quite fast and easier to implement. Transparent and has a strongly polynomial running time. Weaker guarantees than l1.

References
An Infeasible-Point Subgradient Algorithm and a Computational Solver Comparison for l1-Minimization-Dirk A. Lorenz Marc E. Pfetsch Andreas M. Tillmann.

Greedy Signal Recovery and Uncertainty Principles-Deanna Needell and Roman Vershynin,Department of Mathematics, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA ,July 23, 2007.
An Infeasible-Point Subgradient Method Using Adaptive Approximate Projections-Dirk A. Lorenz, Marc E. Pfetsch and Andreas M. Tillmann Institute for Analysis and Algebra, TU Braunschweig, Germany. Automatic Video Classification: A Survey of the Literature-Darin Brezeale and Diane J. Cook, Senior Member, IEEE, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS, 2007. On the Difference Between Orthogonal Matching Pursuit and Orthogonal Least Squares Thomas Blumensath, Member, IEEE, Mike E. Davies, Member, IEEE, DRAFT: MARCH 29, 2007.

Thank You All.