docs(backlog): add semantic segmentation requirement
Add requirement for improving SRT semantic segmentation: - Current rule-based approach cannot identify topic transitions - Document 4 potential solutions with trade-offs - Recommended approach: two-stage with optional LLM Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
|
||||
# Semantic Segmentation for SRT Processing
|
||||
|
||||
**Status:** Backlog
|
||||
**Priority:** Medium
|
||||
**Source:** User feedback during v1.5 testing
|
||||
|
||||
## Problem
|
||||
|
||||
Current `SemanticSegmenter` uses simple heuristic rules:
|
||||
- Time gap > 3 seconds
|
||||
- Paragraph length > 500 characters
|
||||
|
||||
This approach cannot identify **semantic topic transitions**.
|
||||
|
||||
### Example Case
|
||||
|
||||
Video: BV1MiPSz2ErY (科学透镜 - 5 topics in one video)
|
||||
1. 银河系中心的超大黑洞人马座A*其实不是黑洞
|
||||
2. 银河系和仙女座星系等构成的本星系群陷入巨大物质薄片
|
||||
3. 科学家为世界上97%的建筑生成3D模型
|
||||
4. 雷暴的形成
|
||||
5. 闪电的形成
|
||||
|
||||
Current segmentation mixes these topics together.
|
||||
|
||||
## Potential Solutions
|
||||
|
||||
### Option 1: Transition Keyword Detection (Simple)
|
||||
- Detect common transition phrases: "接下来", "另外", "第二个", etc.
|
||||
- **Pros:** Fast, no API calls
|
||||
- **Cons:** Low accuracy, many videos lack explicit transitions
|
||||
|
||||
### Option 2: LLM-Based Segmentation (Accurate)
|
||||
- Ask LLM to analyze entire subtitle and identify topic boundaries
|
||||
- **Pros:** Highest accuracy, understands semantics
|
||||
- **Cons:** Extra API cost, token limits for long videos
|
||||
|
||||
### Option 3: Two-Stage Approach (Balanced)
|
||||
- Stage 1: Simple rule-based segmentation (current)
|
||||
- Stage 2: LLM checks paragraph beginnings for new topics
|
||||
- **Pros:** Most cases use simple rules, LLM only for key decisions
|
||||
- **Cons:** More complex implementation
|
||||
|
||||
### Option 4: Embedding-Based Similarity
|
||||
- Calculate semantic similarity between adjacent paragraphs
|
||||
- Low similarity = topic boundary
|
||||
- **Pros:** No LLM API calls, runs locally
|
||||
- **Cons:** Requires embedding model, implementation complexity
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommendation
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 1 (Quick Win):** Transition keyword detection + improve prompt
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 2 (Full Solution):** Two-stage approach with optional LLM semantic segmentation
|
||||
|
||||
## Success Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
1. Topics are separated correctly
|
||||
2. Each paragraph covers a single coherent topic
|
||||
3. No false splits within a topic
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user