Abstract
Table 1: Average STS Similarities from each system to all others
['Group', 'Average STS to other Groups']
What we observe from this analysis is that the INF group from Carnegie Mellon generates captions which are closer to the captions generated by the others including the human than do the groups from NII, MediaMill, DCU, Sheffield, or even the human annotation, in that order. The line of the group from Sheffield shows an interesting kink at the very low end of the similarity scores and we interpret this as Sheffield generating some captions for some videos which are very inaccurate and thus quite dissimilar to any of the captions generated by any of the other systems or by the human annotator. We believe this is due to the way human captions were generated where the annotaors were asked to include coverage of different facets of videos – who (is present), where (did the video take place), when (was the video taken), etc. This resulted in very structured annotations, almost formulaic in nature compared to the those generated by the automatic systems.