We apply a generative segmental model of task structure, guided by narration, to action segmentation in video. We focus on unsupervised and weakly-supervised settings where no action labels are known during training. Despite its simplicity, our model performs competitively with previous work on a dataset of naturalistic instructional videos. Our model allows us to vary the sources of supervision used in training, and we find that both task structure and narrative language provide large benefits in segmentation quality. Finding boundaries in a continuous stream is a crucial process for human cognition (Martin and Tversky, 2003; Zacks and Swallow, 2007; Levine et al., 2019; Unal et al., 2019). To understand and remember what happens in the world around us, we need to recognize the action boundaries as they unfold and also distinguish the important actions from the insignificant ones. This process, referred to as temporal action segmentation , is also an important first step in systems that ground natural language in videos (Hendricks et al., 2017). These systems must identify which frames in a video depict actions  which amounts to distinguishing these frames from background ones  and identify which actions ( e.g. , boiling potatoes) each frame depicts. Despite recent advances (Miech et al., 2019; Sun et al., 2019), unsupervised action segmentation in videos remains a challenge. The recent availability of large datasets of naturalistic instructional videos provides an opportunity for modeling of action segmentation in a rich task context (Yu et al., 2014; Zhou et al., 2018; Zhukov et al., 2019; Miech et al., 2019; Tang et al., 2019); Work begun while DF was interning at DeepMind. in these videos, a person teaches a specific high-level task ( e.g. , making croquettes) while describing the lower-level steps involved in that task ( e.g. , boiling potatoes). However, the real-world nature of these datasets introduces many challenges. For example, more than 70% of the frames in one of the YouTube instructional video datasets, CrossTask (Zhukov et al., 2019), consist of background regions ( e.g. , the video presenter is thanking their viewers), which do not correspond to any of the steps for the video's task. These datasets are interesting because they provide (1) narrative language that roughly corresponds to the activities demonstrated in the videos and (2) structured task scripts that define a strong signal of the order in which steps in a task are typically performed. As a result, these datasets provide an opportunity to study the extent to which task structure and language can guide action segmentation. Interestingly, young children can segment actions without any explicit supervision (Baldwin et al., 2001; Sharon and Wynn, 1998), by tapping into similar cues  action regularities and language descriptions (Levine et al., 2019). While previous work mostly focuses on building action segmentation models that perform well on a few metrics (Richard et al., 2018; Zhukov et al., 2019), we aim to provide insight into how various modeling choices impact action segmentation. How much do unsupervised models improve when given implicit supervision from task structure and language, and which types of supervision help most? Are discriminative or generative models better suited for the task? Does explicit structure modeling improve the quality of segmentation? To answer these questions, we compare two existing models with a generative hidden semi-Markov model, varying the degree of supervision. that our model and models from past work both benefit substantially from the weak supervision provided by task structure and narrative language, even on top of rich features from state-of-the-art pretrained action and object classifiers. Our analysis also shows that: (1) Generative models tend to do better than discriminative models of the same or similar model class at learning the full range of step types, which benefits action segmentation; (2) Task structure affords strong, feature-agnostic baselines that are difficult for existing systems to surpass; (3) Reporting multiple metrics is necessary to understand each model's effectiveness for action segmentation; we can devise feature-agnostic baselines that perform well on single metrics despite producing low-quality action segments. Typical methods (Rohrbach et al., 2012; Singh et al., 2016; Xu et al., 2017; Zhao et al., 2017; Lea et al., 2017; Yeung et al., 2018; Farha and Gall, 2019) for temporal action segmentation consist of assigning action classes to intervals of videos and rely on manually-annotated supervision. Such annotation is difficult to obtain at scale. As a result, recent work has focused on training such models with less supervision: one line of work assumes that only the order of actions happening in the video is given and use this weak supervision to perform action segmentation (Bojanowski et al., 2014; Huang et al., 2016; Kuehne et al., 2017; Richard et al., 2017; Ding and Xu, 2018; Chang et al., 2019). Other approaches weaken this supervision and use only the set of actions that occur in each video (Richard et al., 2018), or are fully unsupervised (Sener and Yao, 2018; Kukleva et al., 2019). Instructional videos have gained interest over the past few years (Yu et al., 2014; Sener et al., 2015; Malmaud et al., 2015; Alayrac et al., 2016; Zhukov et al., 2019) since they enable weakly-supervised modeling: previous work most similar to ours consists of models that localize actions in narrated videos with minimal supervision (Alayrac et al., 2016; Sener et al., 2015; Elhamifar and Naing, 2019; Zhukov et al., 2019). We present a generative model of action segmentation that incorporates duration modeling, narration and ordering constraints, and can be trained in all of the above supervision conditions by maximizing the likelihood of the data; while these past works have had these individual components, they have not yet all been combined. We use the recent CrossTask dataset (Zhukov et al., 2019) of instructional videos. To our knowledge, CrossTask is the only available dataset that has tasks from more than one domain, includes background regions, provides step annotations and naturalistic language. Other datasets lack one of these; e.g. they focus on one domain (Kuehne et al., 2014) or do not have natural language (Tang et al., 2019) or step annotations (Miech et al., 2019). An example instance from the dataset is shown in Figure 1, and we describe each aspect below. Tasks Each video comes from a task , e.g. make a latte , with tasks taken from the titles of selected WikiHow articles, and videos curated from YouTube search results for the task name. We focus on the primary section of the dataset, containing 2,700 videos from 18 different tasks. Steps and canonical order Each task has a set of steps : lower-level action step types, e.g. , steam milk and pour milk , which are typically completed when performing the task. Step names consist of a few words, typically naming an action and an object it is applied to. The dataset also provides a canonical step order for each task: an ordering, like a script (Schank and Abelson, 1977; Chambers and Jurafsky, 2008), in which a task's steps are typically performed. For each task, the set of step types and their canonical order were hand-constructed by the dataset creators based on section headers in the task's WikiHow article. Annotations Each video in the primary section of the dataset is annotated with labeled temporal segments identifying where steps occur. (In the weak supervision setting, these step segment labels are used only in evaluation, and never in training.) A given step for a task can occur multiple times, or not at all, in any of the task's videos. Steps in a video also need not occur in the task's canonical ordering (although in practice our results show that this ordering is a helpful inductive bias for learn-ing). Most of the frames in videos (72% over the entire corpus) are background  not contained in any step segment. Narration Videos also have narration text (tran-scribed by YouTube's automatic speech recognition system) which typically consists of a mix of the Regions background pourmixtureintopan fl ip pancake background background Video Narration "hey folks here welcome to my kitchen [...] folks my pan is nice and hot [...] just change the angle to show you [...] let cook [...] sit on towel [...] big old stack [...] Timestep Time (in s) Step background fl ip pancake rm pancake background Figure 1: An example video instance from the CrossTask dataset (Sec. 3). task demonstrator describing their actions and talking about unrelated topics. Although narration is temporally aligned with the video, and steps ( e.g. , pour milk ) are sometimes mentioned, these mentions often do not occur at the same time as the step they describe ( e.g. , let the milk cool before pouring it ). Zhukov et al. (2019) guide weakly-supervised training using the narration by defining a set of narration constraints for each video, which identify where in the video steps are likely to occur, using similarity between the step names and temporally-aligned narration (see Sec. 6.1). Our generative model of the video features and labeled task segments is a first-order semi-Markov model. We use a semi-Markov model for the action segmentation task because it explicitly models temporal regions of the video, their duration, their probable ordering, and their features. 1 It can be trained in an unsupervised way, without labeled regions, to maximize the likelihood of the features. Timesteps Our atomic unit is a one-second region of the video, which we refer to as a timestep . A video with T timesteps has feature vectors x 1: T . The features x t at timestep t are derived from the video, its narration, or both, and in our work (and past work on the dataset) are produced by pre-trained neural models which summarize some non-local information in the region containing each timestep, which we describe in Sec. 6.3. Regions Our model segments a video with T timesteps into a sequence of regions, each of which consists of a consecutive number of timesteps (the region's duration ). The number of regions K in a 1 Semi-Markov models are also shown to be successful in the similar domain of speech recognition ( e.g. , Pylkkonen and Kurimo, 2004). video and the duration d k of each region can vary; the only constraint is that the sum of the durations equals the video length: (cid:80) Kk =1 d k = T . Each region has a label r k , which is either one of the task's step labels ( e.g. , pour milk ) or a special label BKG indicating the region is background. In our most general, unconstrained model, a given task step can occur multiple times (or not at all) as a region label in any video for the task, allowing step repetitions, dropping, and reordering. Structure We define a first-order Markov (bi-gram) model over these region labels: P ( r 1: K ) = P ( r 1 ) K (cid:89) k =2 P ( r k | r k  1 ) (1) with tabular conditional probabilities. While region labels are part of the dataset, they are primarily used for evaluation: we seek models that can be trained in the unsupervised and weakly-supervised conditions where labels are unavailable. This model structure, while simple, affords a dynamic program allowing efficient enumeration over both all possible segmentations of the video into regions and assignments of labels to the regions, allowing unsupervised training (Sec. 4.1). Duration Our model, following past work (Richard et al., 2018), parameterizes region durations using Poisson distributions, where each label type r has its own mean duration  r : d k  Poisson(  r k ) . These durations are constrained so that they partition the video: e.g. , region r 2 begins at timestep d 1 (after region r 1 ), and the final region r K ends at the final timestep T . Timestep labels The region labels r 1: K (step, or background) and region durations d 1: K together give a sequence of timestep labels l 1: T for all timesteps, where a timestep's label is equal to the label for the region it is contained in. Feature distribution Our model's feature distribution p ( x t | l t ) is a class-conditioned multivariate Gaussian distribution: x t  Normal(  l t , ) , where l t is the step label at timestep t . (We note that the assignment of labels to steps is latent and unobserved during unsupervised and weakly-supervised training.) We use a separate learned mean  l for each label type l , both steps and background. Labels are atomic and task-specific, e.g. , the step type pour milk when it occurs in the task make a latte does not share parameters with the step add milk when it occurs in the task make pancakes . 2 We use a diagonal covariance matrix  which is fixed to the empirical covariance of each feature dimension. 3 4.1 Training In the unsupervised setting, labels l are unavailable at training (used only in evaluation). We describe training in this setting, as well as two supervised training methods which we use to analyze properties of the dataset and compare model classes. Unsupervised We train the generative model as a hidden semi-Markov model (HSMM). We optimize the model's parameters to maximize the log marginal likelihood of the features for all video instance features x ( i ) in the training set: ML = N (cid:88) i log P ( x ( i ) 1: T i ) (2) Applying the semi-Markov forward algorithm (Murphy, 2002; Yu, 2010) allows us to marginalize over all possible sequences of step labels to compute the log marginal likelihood for each video as a function of the model parameters, which we optimize directly using backpropagation and mini-batched gradient descent with the Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2015) optimizer. 4 See Appendix A for optimization details. Generative supervised Here the labels l are observed; we train the model as a generative semi-Markov model (SMM) to maximize the log joint likelihood: J L = N (cid:88) i log P ( l ( i ) 1: T i , x ( i ) 1: T i ) (3) 2 We experimented with sharing steps, or step components, across tasks in initial experiments, but found that it was helpful to have task-specific structural probabilities. 3 We found that using a shared diagonal covariance matrix outperformed using full or unshared covariance matrices. 4 This is the same as mini-batched Expectation Maximization using gradient descent on the M-objective (Eisner, 2016). We maximize this likelihood over the entire training set using the closed form solution given the dataset's sufficient statistics (per-step feature means, average durations, and step transition fre-quencies). Discriminative supervised To train the SMM model discriminatively in the supervised setting, we use gradient descent to maximize the log conditional likelihood: CL = N (cid:88) i log P ( l ( i ) 1: T | x ( i ) 1: T ) (4) 5 Benchmarks We identify five modeling choices made in recent work: imposing a fixed ordering on steps (not allowing step reordering); allowing for steps to repeat in a video; modeling the duration of steps; using the language (narrations) associated with the video; and using a discriminative/generative model. We picked the recent models of Zhukov et al. (2019) and Richard et al. (2018) since they have non-overlapping strengths (see Table 1). ORDEREDDISCRIM This work (Zhukov et al., 2019) uses a discriminative classifier which gives a probability distribution over labels at each timestep: p ( l t | x t ) . Inference finds an assignment of steps to timesteps that maximizes (cid:80) t log p ( l t | x t ) subject to the constraints that: all steps are predicted exactly once; steps occur in the fixed canonical ordering defined for the task; one background region occurs between each step. Unsupervised training of the model alternates between inferring labels using the dynamic program, and updating the classifier to maximize the probability of these inferred labels. 5 ACTIONSETS This work (Richard et al., 2018) uses a generative model which has structure similar to ours, but uses dataset statistics ( e.g. , average video length and number of steps) to learn the 5 To allow the model to predict step regions with duration longer than a single timestep, we modify this classifier to also predict a background class, and incorporate the scores of the background class into the dynamic program. structure distributions, rather than setting parameters to maximize the likelihood of the data. As in our model, region durations are modeled using a class-conditional Poisson distribution. The feature distribution is modeled using Bayesian inversion of a discriminative classifier (a multi-layer percep-tron) with an estimated label prior. The structural parameters of the model (durations and class priors) are estimated using the length of each video, and the number of possible step types. As originally presented, this model depends on knowing which steps occur in a video at training time; for fair comparison, we adapt it to the same supervision conditions of Zhukov et al. (2019) by enforcing the canonical step ordering for the task during both training and evaluation. We compare models on the CrossTask dataset across supervision conditions. We primarily evaluate the models on action segmentation (Sec. 1). Past work on the dataset (Zhukov et al., 2019) has focused on a step recognition task , where models identify individual timesteps in videos that correspond to possible steps; for comparison, we also report performance for all models on this task. In all settings, the task for a given video is known (and hence the possible steps), but the settings vary in the availability of other sources of supervision: step labels for each timestep in a video, and constraints from language and step ordering. Models are trained on a training set and evaluated on a separate held-out testing set, consisting of different videos (from the same tasks). Fully unsupervised No labels for timesteps are available during training. The only supervision is the number of possible step types for each task (and, as in all settings, which task each video is from). In evaluation, the task for a given video (and hence the possible steps, but not their ordering) are known. We follow past work in this setting (Sener et al., 2015; Sener and Yao, 2018) by finding a mapping from model states to region labels that maximizes label accuracy, averaged across all videos in the task. See Appendix C for details. Weakly supervised No labels for timesteps are available, but two supervision types are used in the form of constraints (Zhukov et al., 2019): (1) Step ordering constraints : Step regions are constrained to occur in the canonical step ordering (see Sec. 3) for the task, but steps may be separated by background. We constrain the structure prior distributions p ( r 1 ) and transition distributions p ( r k +1 | r k ) of the HSMM to enforce this ordering. For p ( r 1 ) , we only allow non-zero probability for the background region, BKG, and for the first step in the task's ordering. p ( r k | r k  1 ) constrains each step type to only transition to the next step in the constrained ordering, or to BKG. 6 As step ordering constraints change the parameters of the model, when we use them we enforce them during both training and testing. While this obviates most of the learned structure of the HSMM, the duration model (as well as the feature model) is still learned. (2) Narration constraints : These give regions in the video where each step type is likely to occur. Zhukov et al. (2019) obtained these using similarities between word vectors for the transcribed narration and the words in the step labels, and a dynamic program to produce constraint regions that maximize these similarities, subject to the step ordering matching the canonical task ordering. See Zhukov et al. for details. We enforce these constraints in the HSMM by penalizing the feature distributions to prevent any step labels that occur outside of one of the allowed constraint regions for that step. Following Zhukov et al., we only use these narration constraints during training. 7 6.2 Evaluation We use three metrics from past work, outlined here and described in more detail in Appendix D. To evaluate action segmentation, we use two varieties of the standard label accuracy metric (Sener and Yao, 2018; Richard et al., 2018): all label accuracy , which is computed on all timesteps, including background and non-background, as well as step label accuracy : accuracy only for timesteps that occur in a non-background region (according to the ground-truth annotations). Since these two accuracy metrics are defined on individual frames, 6 To enforce ordering when steps are separated by BKG, we annotate BKG labels with the preceeding step type (but all BKG labels for a task share feature and duration parameters, and are merged for evaluation). 7 We also experiment with using features derived from transcribed narration in Appendix G. they penalize models if they don't capture the full temporal extent of actions in their predicted segmentations. Our third metric is step recall , used by past work on the CrossTask dataset (Zhukov et al., 2019) to measure step recognition (defined in Sec. 6). This metric evaluates the fraction of step types which are correctly identified by a model when it is allowed to predict only one frame per step type, per video. A high step recall indicates a model can accurately identify at least one representative frame of each action type in a video. We also report three other statistics to analyze the predicted segmentations: (1) Sequence similarity: the similarity of the sequence of region labels predicted in the video to the groundtruth, using inverse Levenshtein distance normalized to be between 0 and 100. See Appendix D for more details. (2) Predicted background percentage: the percentage of timesteps for which the model predicts the background label. Models with a higher percentage than the ground truth background percentage (72%) are overpredicting background. (3) Number of segments: the number of step segments predicted in a video. Values higher than the ground truth average (7.7) indicate overly-fragmented steps. Sequence similarity and number of segments are particularly relevant for measuring the effects of structure, as they do not factor over individual timesteps (as do the all label and step label accuracies and step recall). We average values across the 18 tasks in the evaluation set (following Zhukov et al., 2019). For our features x 1: T , we use the same base features as Zhukov et al. (2019), which are produced by convolutional networks pre-trained on separate activity, object, and audio classification datasets. See Appendix B for details. In our generative models, we apply PCA (following Kuehne et al., 2014 and Richard et al., 2018) to project features to 300 dimensions and decorrelate dimensions (see Appendix B for details). 8 7 Results We first define several baselines based on dataset statistics (Sec. 7.1), which we will find to be strong in comparison to past work. We then analyze each 8 This reduces the number of parameters that need to be learned in the emission distributions, both by reducing the dimensionality and allowing a diagonal covariance matrix. In early experiments we found PCA improved performance. aspect of our proposed model on the dataset in a supervised training setting (Sec. 7.2), removing some error sources of unsupervised learning and evaluating whether a given model fits the dataset (Liang and Klein, 2008). Finally, we move to our main setting, the weakly-supervised setting of past work, incrementally adding step ordering and narration constraints (see Sec. 6.1) to evaluate the degree to which each helps (Sec. 7.3). Results are given in Table 2 for models trained on the CrossTask training set of primary tasks, and evaluated on the held-out validation set. We will describe and analyze each set of results in turn. See Figure 2 for a plot of models' performance on two key metrics, and Appendix I for example predictions. Table 2 (top block) shows baselines that do not use video (or narration) features, but predict steps according to overall statistics of the training data. These demonstrate characteristics of the data, and the importance of using multiple metrics. Predict background (B1) Since most timesteps are background, a model that predicts background everywhere can obtain high overall label accuracy, showing the importance of also using step label accuracy as a metric for action segmentation. Sample from the training distribution (B2) For each timestep in each video, we sample a label from the empirical distribution of step and background label frequencies for the video's task in the training data. Ordered uniform (B3) For each video, we predict step regions in the canonical step order, separated by background regions. The length of each region is set so that all step regions in a video have equal duration, and the percentage of background timesteps is equal to the corpus average. See Uniform in Figure 3a for sample predictions. Sampling each timestep label independently from the task distribution (row B2), and using a uniform step assignment in the task's canonical ordering with background (B3) both obtain similar step label accuracy, but the ordered uniform baseline improves substantially on the step recall metric, indicating that step ordering is a useful inductive bias for step recognition . Models in the unstructured block of Table 2 are classification models applied independently to all timesteps, allowing us to compare the performance of the feature models used as components in our structured models. We find that a Gaussian mixture model (row S3), which is used as the feature model in the HSMM, obtains comparable step recall and substantially higher step label accuracy than a discriminative linear classifer (row S1) similar to the one used in Zhukov et al. (2019), which is partially explained by the discriminative classifier overpredicting the background class (comparing Predicted Background % for those two rows). Using a higher capacity discriminative classifier, a neural net with a single hidden layer (MLP), improves performance over the linear model on several metrics (row S2); however, the MLP still overpredicts background, substantially underperforming the Gaussian mixture on the step label accuracy metric. In the structured block of Table 2, we compare the full models which use step constraints (Zhukov et al., 2019) or learned transition distributions (the SMM) to model task structure. The structured models learn (or in the case of Zhukov et al., enforce) orderings over the steps, which greatly improve their sequence similarity scores when compared to the unstructured models, and decrease step fragmentation (as measured by num. segments). Figure 3a shows predictions for a typical video, demonstrating this decreased fragmentation. 9 9 We also perform an ablation study to understand the effect of the duration model. (a) Step segmentations in the full supervision condition for a video from the make kimchi fried rice task, comparing the ground truth (GT), ordered uniform baseline (Uniform), and predictions from the Gaussian mixture (GMM) and semi-Markov (SMM) models. (b) Step segmentations in the noor weak-supervision conditions for a video from the make pancakes task, comparing the ground truth (GT) to predictions from our model without (HSMM) and with constraint supervision (HSMM+Narr+Ord) and from Zhukov et al. (2019) (ORDEREDDISCRIM ). We see two trends in the supervised results: (1) Generative models obtain substantially higher step label accuracy than discriminative models of the same or similar class. This is likely due to the fact that the generative models directly parameterize the step distribution. (See Appendix E.) (2) Structured sequence modeling naturally improves performance on sequence-level metrics (se-quence similarity and number of segments predicted) over the unstructured models. However, none of the learned structured models improve on the strong ordered uniform baseline (B3) which just predicts the canonical ordering of a task's steps (interspersed with background regions). This will motivate using this canonical ordering as a constraint in unsupervised learning. Overall, the SMM models obtain strong action segmentation performance (high step label accuracy without fragmenting segments or overpredicting background). Here models are trained without supervision for the labels l 1: T . We compare models trained without any constraints, to those that use constraints from step ordering and narration, in the Unand Weakly Supervised block of Table 2. Example outputs are shown in Appendix I. Our generative HSMM model affords training without any constraints (row U1). This model has high step label accuracy (compared to the other unsupervised models) but low all label accuracy, and similar scores for both metrics. This hints, and other metrics confirm, that the model is not adequately distinguishing steps from background: the percentage of predicted background is very low (31%) compared to the ground truth (72%, row GT). See HSMM in Figure 3b for predictions for a typical video. These results are attributable to features within a given video (even across step types) being more similar than features of the same step type in different videos (see Appendix H for feature visualizations). The induced latent model states typically capture this inter-video diversity, rather than distinguishing steps across tasks. We next add in constraints from the canonical step ordering , which our supervised results showed to be a strong inductive bias. Unlike in the fully unsupervised setting, the HSMM model with ordering (HSMM+Ord, row U4) learns to distinguish steps from background when constrained to predict each step region once in a video, with predicted background timesteps (70.6%) close to the ground-truth (72%). However, performance of this model is still very low on the task metrics  comparable to or underperforming the ordered uniform baseline with background (row B3) on all metrics. This constrained step ordering setting also allows us to apply ACTIONSETS (Richard et al., 2018) and ORDEREDDISCRIM (Zhukov et al., 2019). ACTIONSETS obtains high step label accuracy, but substantially underpredicts background, as evidenced by both the all label accuracy and the low predicted background percentage. The tendency of ORDEREDDISCRIM to overpredict background which we saw in the supervised setting (row S4) is even more pronounced in this weakly-supervised setting (row U3), resulting in scores very close to the predict background baseline (B1). Next, we use narration constraints (U5), which are enforced only during training time, following Zhukov et al. (2019). Narration constraints substantially improve all label accuracy (comparing U1 and U5). However, the model overpredicts All Label Step Label Step Acc. background, likely because it doesn't enforce each step type to occur in a given video. Overpredicting background causes step label accuracy and step recall to decrease. Finally, we compare the HSMM and ORDEREDDISCRIM models when using both narration constraints (in training) and ordering constraints (in training and testing) in the ordering + narration block. Both models benefit substantially from narration on all metrics when compared to using only ordering supervision, more than doubling their performance on step label accuracy and step recall (comparing U6 and U7 to U3 and U4). Our weakly-supervised results show that: (1) Both action segmentation metrics  all label accuracy and step label accuracy  are important to evaluate whether models adequately distinguish meaningful actions from background. (2) Step constraints derived from the canonical step ordering provide a strong inductive bias for unsupervised step induction. Past work requires these constraints and the HSMM, when trained without them, does poorly, learning to capture diversity across videos rather than to identify steps. (3) However, ordering supervision alone is not sufficient to allow these models to learn better segmentations than a simple baseline that just uses the ordering to assign labels ( ordered uniform ); narration is also required. Finally, we compare our full model to the ORDEREDDISCRIM model of Zhukov et al. (2019) in the primary data evaluation setup from that work: averaging results over 20 random splits of the primary data (Table 3). This is a low data setting which uses only 30 videos per task as training data in each split. Accordingly, both models have lower performance, although the relative ordering is the same: higher step label accuracy for the HSMM, and higher all label accuracy and step recall for ORDEREDDISCRIM . Although in this low-data setting, models overpredict background even more, this problem is less pronounced for the HSMM: 97.4% of timesteps for ORDEREDDISCRIM are predicted background (explaining its high all label accuracy), and 87.1% for HSMM. We find that unsupervised action segmentation in naturalistic instructional videos is greatly aided by the inductive bias given by typical step orderings within a task, and narrative language describing the actions being done. While some results are more mixed (with the same supervision, different models are better on different metrics), we do observe that across settings and metrics, step ordering and narration increase performance. Our results also illustrate the importance of strong baselines: without weak supervision from step orderings and narrative language, even state-of-the-art unsupervised action segmentation models operating on rich video features underperform feature-agnostic baselines. We hope that future work will continue to evaluate broadly. While action segmentation in videos from diverse domains remains challenging  videos contain both a large variety of types of depicted actions, and high visual variety in how the actions are portrayed  we find that structured generative models provide a strong benchmark for the task due to their abilities to capture the full diversity of action types (by directly modeling distributions over action occurrences), and to benefit from weak supervision. Future work might explore methods for incorporating richer learned representations both of the diverse visual observations in videos, and the narration that describes them, into such models. Thanks to Dan Klein, Andrew Zisserman, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Aishwarya Agrawal, Gabor Melis, Angeliki Lazaridou, Anna Rohrbach, Justin Chiu, Susie Young, the DeepMind language team, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful feedback on this work. DF is supported by a Google PhD Fellowship.
method method method result abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain method method other other other other other other method method method abstain abstain abstain method abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain other abstain abstain abstain abstain method abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain method abstain method abstain abstain abstain abstain method abstain method abstain method method method abstain other abstain abstain method method abstain method abstain abstain method abstain method abstain abstain method abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain result abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain other abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain result abstain abstain result abstain result abstain result abstain abstain abstain abstain method method abstain abstain abstain method abstain abstain method abstain abstain method abstain method abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain method abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain method abstain abstain method abstain abstain abstain abstain method abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain result result result method result abstain other other