PETS 2015: datasets and challenge

This paper presents the two datasets (ARENA and P5) and the challenge that form a part of the PETS 2015 workshop. The datasets consist of scenarios recorded by us- ing multiple visual and thermal sensors. The scenarios in ARENA dataset involve different staged activities around a parked vehicle in a parking lot in UK and those in P5 dataset involve different staged activities around the perimeter of a nuclear power plant in Sweden. The scenarios of each dataset are grouped into ‘Normal’, ‘Warning’ and ‘Alarm’ categories. The Challenge specifically includes tasks that account for different steps in a video understanding system: Low-Level Video Analysis (object detection and tracking), Mid-Level Video Analysis (‘atomic’ event detection) and High-Level Video Analysis (‘complex’ event detection). The evaluation methodology used for the Challenge includes well-established measures.

PETS 2014: dataset and challenge

This paper describes the dataset and vision challenges that form part of the PETS 2014 workshop. The datasets are multisensor sequences containing different activities around a parked vehicle in a parking lot. The dataset scenarios were filmed from multiple cameras mounted on the vehicle itself and involve multiple actors. In PETS2014 workshop, 22 acted scenarios are provided of abnormal behaviour around the parked vehicle. The aim in PETS 2014 is to provide a standard benchmark that indicates how detection, tracking, abnormality and behaviour analysis systems perform against a common database. The dataset specifically addresses several vision challenges corresponding to different steps in a video understanding system: Low-Level Video Analysis (object detection and tracking), Mid-Level Video Analysis (‘simple’ event detection: the behaviour recognition of a single actor) and High-Level Video Analysis (‘complex’ event detection: the behaviour and interaction recognition of several actors).

Do non-philosophers think epistemic consequentialism is counterintuitive?

Direct epistemic consequentialism is the idea that X is epistemically permissible iff X maximizes epistemic value. It has received lots of attention in recent years and is widely accepted by philosophers to have counterintuitive implications. There are various reasons one might suspect that the relevant intuitions will not be widely shared among non-philosophers. This paper presents an initial empirical study of ordinary intuitions. The results of two experiments demonstrate that the counterintuitiveness of epistemic consequentialism is more than a philosophers' worry---the folk seem to agree!