=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2219/paper4
|storemode=property
|title=Interval-based Activity Recognition
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2219/paper4.pdf
|volume=Vol-2219
|authors=Evangelos Makris,Alexander Artikis,Georgios Paliouras
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ilp/MakrisAP18
}}
==Interval-based Activity Recognition==
<pdf width="1500px">https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2219/paper4.pdf</pdf>
<pre>
           Interval-based Activity Recognition

       Evangelos Makris1 , Alexander Artikis2,1 , and Georgios Paliouras1

       Institute of Informatics and Telecommunications, NCSR “Demokritos”1
               Department of Maritime Studies, University of Piraeus2
                 {vmakris,a.artikis,paliourg}@iit.demokritos.gr



       Abstract. Activity recognition refers to the detection of temporal com-
       binations of ‘low-level’ or ‘short-term’ activities on sensor data. Various
       types of uncertainty exist in activity recognition systems and this often
       leads to erroneous detection. Typically, the frameworks aiming to han-
       dle uncertainty compute the probability of the occurrence of activities
       at each time-point. We extend this approach by defining the probability
       of a maximal interval and the credibility rate for such intervals.


1     Introduction

In activity recognition, multiple sources provide spatial and temporal data that
can be used to detect various types of human behaviour. The input data are
short-term activities (STA), such as ‘walking, ‘running, ‘active’ and ‘inactive’,
indicating that a person is walking, running, moving his arms while in the same
position, and so on. The output is a set of long-term activities (LTA), which are
temporal combinations of STA. Examples are ‘fighting’, ‘meeting’, ‘moving’, etc.
When a rule that consists of temporal constraints on a set of STA is satisfied, it
leads to the recognition of LTA. Uncertainty is inherent in activity recognition.
For example, STA, typically detected by visual information processing tools
operating on video feeds, often have probabilities attached to them by low-
level classifiers, serving as a confidence estimates. In earlier work, we presented
an activity recognition system based on a probabilistic version of the Event
Calculus, hereafter Prob-EC, that computes the probability of an LTA at each
time-point [12]. We extend this approach by defining the probability of a maximal
interval and the credibility rate for such intervals. In contrast to time-point-based
activity recognition, our proposed method is robust to noisy LTA probability
fluctuations.


2     Background

2.1   Event Calculus

We restrict attention to a simple version of the Event Calculus where the time
model is linear and includes integer time-points. Variables start with an upper-
case letter, while predicates and constants start with a lower-case letter. Where
F is a fluent—a property that is allowed to have different values at different
points in time—the term F = V denotes that fluent F has value V . The domain-
independent axioms are presented below:
              holdsAt(F = V , T ) ←
                initiatedAt(F = V , Ts ), Ts < T ,                            (1)
                not broken(F = V , Ts , T ).
              broken(F = V , Ts , T ) ←
                                                                              (2)
                 terminatedAt(F = V , Tf ), Ts < Tf < T .
              broken(F = V , Ts , T ) ←
                                                                              (3)
                 initiatedAt(F = V 0 , Tf ), V 6= V 0 , Ts < Tf < T .

According to axiom (1), F = V holds at some time-point T if it has been initiated
by an event previously and has not been ‘broken’ in the meantime. This expresses
the law of inertia. F = V is ‘broken’ in (Ts , T ) if it is terminated (see axiom
(2)) or F = V 0 is initiated, for some V 0 6= V (see axiom (3)). The definitions
of initiatedAt and terminatedAt are domain-specific. Consider, for example, the
(partial) definition of moving from the domain of activity recognition:
                initiatedAt(moving(P1 , P2 ) = true, T ) ←
                   happensAt(walking(P1 ), T ),
                   happensAt(walking(P2 ), T ),                               (4)
                   holdsAt(close(P1 , P2 ) = true, T ),
                   holdsAt(similarOrientation(P1 , P2 ) = true, T ).
                terminatedAt(moving(P1 , P2 ) = true, T ) ←
                   happensAt(walking(P1 ), T ),                               (5)
                   holdsAt(close(P1 , P2 ) = false, T ).

moving is a long-term activity (LTA) expressed as a Boolean fluent, and de-
fined in terms of a set of short-term activities (STA) expressed as instanta-
neous events, and contextual information detected on video content. walking,
running, active and inactive are mutually exclusive STA detected on video
frames. Each such STA is accompanied by the coordinates and orientation of
the tracked entity in question. These are the input of the activity recognition
system. close(P1 , P2 ) is true when the distance between the tracked entities P1
and P2 is smaller than some pre-defined threshold of pixel positions. Similarly,
similarOrientation(P1 , P2 ) is true when the difference in orientation of P1 and
P2 is less than 45 degrees. According to rule (4), moving(P1 , P2 ) = true is said
to be initiated when both P1 and P2 are walking, they are close to each other
and have a similar orientation. Furthermore, moving(P1 , P2 ) = true is said to be
terminated when the two tracked persons walk away from each other (see rule
(5)). The remaining terminating conditions are defined in a similar manner [12].
    Note that initiatedAt(F = V, T ) does not necessarily imply that F 6=V at T .
Similarly, terminatedAt(F = V, T ) does not necessarily imply that F = V at T [3].
Suppose that F = V is initiated at time-points 10 and 20 and terminated at
time-points 25 and 30 (and at no other time-points). In that case F = V holds
at all T such that 10<T ≤25.
2.2   Point-based Probabilistic Event Calculus
Prob-EC [12] is a probabilistic version of the Event Calculus implemented in
ProbLog [7]. The aim of Prob-EC is to compute the probabilities of
holdsAt(F = V , T ), i.e. the truth value of F = V at time-point T . A Prob-EC
programme consists of probabilistic facts, the domain-indepedent rules of the
Event Calculus (see rules (1)–(3)), as well as domain-specific rules (such as rules
(4) and (5)). Probabilistic facts are defined as p :: f , meaning that f holds as true
with probability p in each of its groundings. All these facts represent independent
random variables. The marginal probability of the head holding is therefore the
product of the probabilities of the facts holding. This way, Prob-EC deals with
uncertainty in the input data. The probability of holdsAt(LTA = true, T ) is equal
to the probability of the disjunction of the initiation conditions of LTA = true be-
fore T , assuming that LTA = true has not been ‘broken’ in the meantime. Hence,
multiple initiations of LTA = true increase its probability. Moreover, if LTA = true
is ‘broken’ with probability p1 , then the probability of LTA = true becomes equal
to the product of the probability of the disjunction of initiations and 1 −p1 (see
axiom (1)). Therefore, the higher the probability p1 the more significant the
decrease of the probability of LTA = true. Furthermore, consecutive terminations
decrease further the probability of LTA = true [12].

3     Probabilistic Maximal Interval Estimation
An instantaneous indication of an activity, by means of holdsAt, for example,
may lead to erroneous detection, which may be due to the unreliability of the
sensors or due to the inaccuracy of the recognition patterns. Towards this, we
propose a Probabilistic Interval −based Event Calculus (PIEC ). Figure 1 shows
a high-level description of the inference procedure. First, we use Prob-EC, as
described in the previous section, to compute the probabilities of LTA at each
time-point given the probabilistic ‘short-term’ activities (STA). The recognition
is based on domain-specific rules of initiation and termination, such as rules
(4)–(5). The next phase consists of the interval-based activity recognition. With
respect to a probability threshold, PIEC computes all ‘probabilistic maximal
intervals’, i.e. the maximal intervals within which an activity is likely to hold.
Definition 1. The probability of interval ILTA =[i , j ]            of   LTA     with
length(ILTA ) = j −i +1 time-points is defined as
                                 Pj
                                        P (holdsAt(LTA, k ))
                      P (ILTA ) = k = i                      .
                                        length(ILTA )
   In other words, the probability of an interval is equal to the average of the
probabilities at the time-points that it contains.
   A key concept of PIEC is that of probabilistic maximal interval:
Definition 2. A probabilistic maximal interval ILTA =[i , j ] of LTA is an interval
such that, given some threshold T ∈ [0, 1], P (ILTA ) ≥ T , and there is no other
          0                 0                                          0
interval ILTA such that P (ILTA ) ≥ T and ILTA is a sub-interval of ILTA   .
 Instantaneous
    Activity
  Recognition                                                          LTA initiation
                      Short Term                                          rules
                       Activities
                        (STA)


                                                                          Prob-EC



          0.5::happensAt(walking(id1) = true, 1)
          0.7::happensAt(walking(id2) = true, 1)
          0.92::happensAt(walking(id3) = true, 2)
          ...                                                         LTA termination
          0.6::happensAt(active(id2) = true, 4)                            rules
          0.7::happensAt(inactive(id3) = true, 4)
          0.05::happensAt(walking(id1) = true, 9)

                   Probability of                                           Probability of
                     Meeting                                                   Moving

                                                                                                                       Probabilistic
                                                                                                                      Instantaneous
                                                                                                                    Long Term Activities
                                                                                                                           (LTA)




                           Time                                                     Time
                                   [1, 5]               [0, 4]                                             [7, 9]

                                       [3, 6]             [1, 5]
 Interval-based
     Activity
  Recognition                                                    P([0, 4]) = (0+0.5+0.7+0.9+0.4)/5 =
                                                                                  0.5                                    User 's
                                                                                                                        Threshold
      P([1, 5]) = (0.3+0.3+0.7+0.7+0.5)/5                        Cred([0, 4]) = P([0, 4]) lenght([0, 4])
                      = 0.5                                                 = 0.5 * 5 = 2.5
      Cred([1, 5]) = P([1, 5]) lenght([1, 5])                    P([1, 5]) = (0.5+0.7+0.9+0.4+0.1)/5
                 = 0.5 * 5 =2.5                                                  = 0.52
                                                                 Cred([1, 5]) = P([1, 5]) lenght([1, 5])
       P([3, 6]) = (0.7+0.7+0.5+0.1)/4 =                                   = 0.52 * 5 = 2.6
                       0.5
      Cred([3, 6]) = P([3, 6]) lenght([3, 6])
                                                                     P([7, 9]) = (0+0.5+1)/3 = 0.5
                   = 0.5 * 4 =2
                                                                                                                      Probabilistic
                                                                 Cred([7, 9]) = P([7, 9]) lenght([7, 9])             Interval based
                                                                            = 0.5 * 3 =1.5                           Event Calculus
                                                                                                                         (PIEC)




                                            Probabilistic Maximal
                                                 Intervals




Fig. 1: Interval-based activity recognition. First (top figure, above the dashed
line), Prob-EC computes the instantaneous probabilities of LTA, such as meeting
and moving, given the probabilistic STA, such as ‘walking’, ‘active’ and ‘inac-
tive’. Second (bottom figure, below the dashed line), PIEC computes the ‘prob-
abilistic maximal intervals’ of LTA, assuming a probability threshold (0.5 in this
example). These intervals are depicted by the red (dashed) lines below the in-
stantaneous probability evolution diagrams. The computation of the probability
and ‘credibility’ of each such interval is presented in the boxes below the red
lines.
   A consequence of the definition of a probabilistic maximal interval is that
such intervals may be overlapping. Two examples are shown in Figure 1—see the
overlapping red lines under the instantaneous probability evolution diagrams of
meeting and moving. From a set of overlapping probabilistic maximal intervals,
we keep only one, using interval ‘credibility’, defined as the product of interval
length and probability:
                                                    X
         Cred (ILTA ) = length(ILTA ) · P (ILTA ) =   P (holdsAt(LTA, k )),    (6)
                                                       k

where k are the time-points of the interval ILTA . Hence, for each set of overlap-
ping probabilistic maximal intervals S ={I1 , I2 , . . . , Ik }, we select the one with
the highest credibility, i.e. we select ILTA with Cred (ILTA ) = max (Cred (Ii )) for
                                                                        i
i = 1 , . . . , k . In Figure 1 the credible intervals are depicted by the solid red lines.
Equation (6) ensures that we keep an interval which is as likely and long as
possible. Nevertheless, this is just one of the many ways of picking between
overlapping probabilistic maximal intervals.


                                       1


                                      0.8
                 Probability of LTA




                                      0.6


                                      0.4


                                      0.2


                                       0
                                               Time

Fig. 2: Probabilistic activity recognition. The black line represents the LTA prob-
ability evolution computed by Prob-EC. The green horizontal lines denote the
maximal intervals that may be derived by Prob-EC using a 0.7 threshold, i.e. the
set of all consecutive time-points with LTA probability above 0.7. The red line
denotes the credible maximal interval computed by PIEC using the same thresh-
old value, and the blue line expresses the ground truth.


   Figure 2 illustrates, with the use of a benchmark activity recognition dataset1 ,
the conditions in which the proposed approach is beneficial. This figure shows a
1
    http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/CAVIARDATA1/
case of probability fluctuation—a steady increase in probability is followed by a
noisy observation that reduces dramatically the LTA probability. Subsequently,
the probability increases again. PIEC is able to compute a single maximal inter-
val, mitigating the effects of the noisy observation reducing temporarily the LTA
probability. In contrast, Prob-EC is directly affected by the noisy observation,
creating a series of false negatives between its two maximal intervals. To approx-
imate the interval of PIEC, we would have to lower significantly the threshold
value for Prob-EC, creating numerous false positives in other cases.


4    Related Work
The input data of an activity recognition system exhibit various types of un-
certainty [2]. One such type is that of incomplete or missing evidence [5]. Ad-
ditionally, the input events typically have a noise component added to them.
Consequently, events are often accompanied by a probability value. Several fac-
tors contribute to the corruption of the input events, such as the limited accuracy
of sensors and distortion along a communication channel.
    A recent survey [2] identified the following classes of methods for handling un-
certainty in activity recognition: automata-based methods, probabilistic graphi-
cal models, probabilistic/stochastic Petri Nets and approaches based on stochas-
tic (context-free) grammars. The closest line of work to our approach concerns
the use of probabilistic graphical models, such as Markov Networks. When used
for activity recognition, Markov Networks are combined with first-order logic,
in which case they are called Markov Logic Networks (MLN) [9]. The work of
Skarlatidis et al. [13] is one of the first attempts to provide a general probabilistic
framework for activity recognition via MLN. In order to establish such a frame-
work, Skarlatidis and colleagues employed the Event Calculus [8]. They aimed
to tackle LTA definition uncertainty, i.e. model imperfect rules expressing LTA.
Instead, we built upon a probabilistic Event Calculus handling data uncertainty.
Although probabilistic STA can be incorporated into graphical models, correctly
encoding their dependencies can be far from obvious, especially with MLN [2].
    There are also logic-based approaches to activity recognition that do not
(directly) employ graphical models, such as [4, 10, 1, 11]. A key difference between
our work and these methods lies in the use of the Event Calculus, which allows
us to develop an expressive activity recognition framework, specifying succinctly
complex LTA by taking advantage of the built-in representation of inertia. A
recently proposed probabilistic Event Calculus is presented in [6]. Our work is
complementary to the Event Calculus of [6], as well as that of Skarlatidis et
al. [13]. The computation of probabilistic maximal intervals may operate on top
of any dialect for point-based probability calculation.


References
 1. Massimiliano Albanese, Rama Chellappa, Naresh Cuntoor, Vincenzo Moscato, An-
    tonio Picariello, V. S. Subrahmanian, and Octavian Udrea. PADS: A Probabilistic
    Activity Detection Framework for Video Data. IEEE Transactions on Pattern
    Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 32(12):2246–2261, 2010.
 2. Elias Alevizos, Anastasios Skarlatidis, Alexander Artikis, and Georgios Paliouras.
    Probabilistic complex event recognition: A survey.          ACM Comput. Surv.,
    50(5):71:1–71:31, 2017.
 3. Alexander Artikis, Marek J. Sergot, and Georgios Paliouras. An event calculus for
    event recognition. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 27(4):895–908, 2015.
 4. William Brendel, Alan Fern, and Sinisa Todorovic. Probabilistic event logic for
    interval-based event recognition. In The 24th IEEE Conference on Computer Vi-
    sion and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2011, Colorado Springs, CO, USA, 20-25
    June 2011, pages 3329–3336, 2011.
 5. Nimrod Busany, Avigdor Gal, Arik Senderovich, and Matthias Weidlich. Interval-
    based queries over multiple streams with missing timestamps. 2017.
 6. Fabio Aurelio D’Asaro, Antonis Bikakis, Luke Dickens, and Rob Miller. Founda-
    tions for a probabilistic event calculus. In Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic
    Reasoning - 14th International Conference, LPNMR 2017, Espoo, Finland, July
    3-6, 2017, Proceedings, pages 57–63, 2017.
 7. A. Dries, A. Kimmig, W. Meert, J. Renkens, G. Van den Broeck, J. Vlasselaer,
    and L. De Raedt. Problog2: Probabilistic logic programming. In ECML, 2015.
 8. Robert A. Kowalski and Marek J. Sergot. A logic-based calculus of events. New
    Generation Comput., 4(1):67–95, 1986.
 9. M. Richardson and P. Domingos. Markov logic networks. Machine Learning, 62(1–
    2):107–136, 2006.
10. Joseph Selman, Mohamed R. Amer, Alan Fern, and Sinisa Todorovic. PEL-CNF:
    Probabilistic event logic conjunctive normal form for video interpretation. In IC-
    CVW, pages 680–687. IEEE, 2011.
11. Vinay D. Shet, Jan Neumann, Visvanathan Ramesh, and Larry S. Davis. Bilattice-
    based Logical Reasoning for Human Detection. In (CVPR), pages 1–8. IEEE
    Computer Society, 2007.
12. Anastasios Skarlatidis, Alexander Artikis, Jason Filipou, and Georgios Paliouras.
    A probabilistic logic programming event calculus. TPLP, 15(2):213–245, 2015.
13. Anastasios Skarlatidis, Georgios Paliouras, Alexander Artikis, and George A.
    Vouros. Probabilistic event calculus for event recognition. ACM Trans. Comput.
    Logic, 16(2), 2015.

</pre>