Cited by 110Video Analysis and SummarizationAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesDigital Media Forensic Detection

Scalable detection of partial near-duplicate videos by visual-temporal consistency

Open access
Tan, Hung-Khoon, Ngo, Chong-Wah, Hong, Richard, Chua, Tat-Seng·2009·Proceedings of the 17th ACM international conference on Multimedia

Abstract

Following the exponential growth of social media, there now exist huge repositories of videos online. Among the huge volumes of videos, there exist large numbers of near-duplicate videos. Most existing techniques either focus on the fast retrieval of full copies or near-duplicates, or consider localization in a heuristic manner. This paper considers the scalable detection and localization of partial near-duplicate videos by jointly considering visual similarity and temporal consistency. Temporal constraints are embedded into a network structure as directed edges. Through the structure, partial alignment is novelly converted into a network flow problem where highly efficient solutions exist. To precisely decide the boundaries of the overlapping segments, pair-wise constraints generated from keypoint matching can be added to the network to iteratively refine the localization result. We demonstrate the effectiveness of partial alignment for three different tasks. The first task links partial segments in full-length movies to videos crawled from YouTube. The second task performs fast web video search, while the third performs near-duplicate shot and copy detection. The experimental result demonstrates the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed method compared to state-of-the-art techniques.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/1631272.1631295

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The best results on Muscle-VCD are 0.86 QS and 0.76 QF, reported in [14].

    “To our knowledge the best results achieved on this dataset are 0.86 and 0.76 respectively for the two criteria, reported in [14]”

    From VCDB: A Large-Scale Database for Partial Copy Detection in Videos (2014) · cites this paper as [14]

    Section 7.1 (page unavailable) reports the highest Muscle-VCD-2007 localization scores as QS = 0.90 and QF = 0.82, not 0.86 and 0.76. The 0.86 values visible in Table 7 are detection precision for other teams, not QS scores. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The baseline system has demonstrated state-of-the-art results in recent copy detection research.

    “We further benchmark a baseline system on VCDB, which has demonstrated state-of-the-art results in recent copy detection research.”
  • The small performance gap on Muscle-VCD is mainly due to the use of different geometric verification methods.

    “The small performance gap is mainly due to the use of different geometric verification methods. An improved version of the WGC was used in [14], while our baseline uses the standard WGC.”

    From VCDB: A Large-Scale Database for Partial Copy Detection in Videos (2014) · cites this paper as [14]

    Section 7.1 reports Muscle-VCD results and describes reranking with SR-PE verification, but it does not compare the cited method with the citing paper’s baseline or explain a small performance gap. The method description in Section 5 also identifies SR-PE, not WGC, as its verification method. Searches for the performance-gap explanation and WGC found no passage establishing the claimed cause. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tan, H.-K., Ngo, C.-W., Hong, R., & Chua, T.-S.
Affiliations
  • City University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
Venue
Proceedings of the 17th ACM international conference on Multimedia
Publisher
ACM
Published
2009-10-19
Pages
145-154
OpenAlex
W2096395091
Cited by
110
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 11
FWCI
8.71
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM International Conference on Multimedia (ACM MM) (publishedVersion)
  • Singapore Management University Institutional Knowledge (InK) (Singapore Management University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • National University of Singapore (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Video Analysis and Summarization
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
Keywords
temporal coherence, partial alignment, network flow, feature point matching, shot detection, copy detection, social media videos

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review