Parsing Video Events with Goal inference and Intent Prediction

Mingtao Peia,b, Yunde Jiaa, Song-Chun Zhub

a Lab of Intelligent Info. Technology, Beijing Institute of Technologyb Department of Statistics, University of California, Los Angeles

{peimt,jiayunde}@bit.edu.cn, sczhu@stat.ucla.edu

Abstract

In this paper, we present an event parsing algorithmbased on Stochastic Context Sensitive Grammar (SCSG) forunderstanding events, inferring the goal of agents, and pre-dicting their plausible intended actions. The SCSG repre-sents the hierarchical compositions of events and the tem-poral relations between the sub-events. The alphabets ofthe SCSG are atomic actions which are defined by the posesof agents and their interactions with objects in the scene.The temporal relations are used to distinguish events withsimilar structures, interpolate missing portions of events,and are learned from the training data. In comparison withexisting methods, our paper makes the following contribu-tions. i) We define atomic actions by a set of relations basedon the fluents of agents and their interactions with objectsin the scene. ii) Our algorithm handles events insertion andmulti-agent events, keeps all possible interpretations of thevideo to preserve the ambiguities, and achieves the globallyoptimal parsing solution in a Bayesian framework; iii) Thealgorithm infers the goal of the agents and predicts theirintents by a top-down process; iv) The algorithm improvesthe detection of atomic actions by event contexts. We showsatisfactory results of event recognition and atomic actiondetection on the data set we captured which contains 12event categories in both indoor and outdoor videos.

1. IntroductionCognitive studies[8] show that humans have a strong in-

clination to interpret observed behaviors of others as goal-directed actions. In this paper, we take such a teleologi-cal stance for understanding events in surveillance video, inwhich people are assumed to be rational agents[7] whoseactions are often planned to achieve certain goals. In thisway, we can interpret observed events in terms of inferringthe underlying goals and predicting the next actions.

Imagine an office scene, an agent picks up a cup, andwalks to the desk on which there is a tea box, we mightinfer that his goal is to make tea, and we predict that his next

action is to put a tea bag in the cup. But instead, he picksup the phone on the desk, we may now infer that his goalhas been interrupted by an incoming call. After the call,he walks to the dispenser, his action is obscured due to ourviewing angle. After some time, he is observed drinking.We can now infer that he had poured water in the cup in theoccluded time section.

To achieve the above event understanding capability, weneed to solve several problems: i) Representing events inhierarchical structure with temporal relations. ii) Dealingwith event insertions, interruptions, multi-agent events andagent-object interactions. iii) Preserving the ambiguitiesboth in the lower level atomic action detection and higherlevel event recognition to achieve globally optimized solu-tion.

Existing methods for event representation and recogni-tion can be divided into two categories. 1) HMMs andDBN based methods. Brand et al.[5] modeled human ac-tions by coupled HMMs. Natarajan[14] described an ap-proach based on Coupled Hidden Semi Markov Models forrecognizing human activities. Kazuhiro et al [15] built aconversation model based on dynamic Bayesian network.Al-Hames and Rigoll [2] presented a multi-modal mixed-state dynamic Bayesian network for meeting event clas-sification. Although HMMs and DBN based algorithmsachieved some success, the HMMs do not model the highorder relations between sub-events, and the fixed structureof DBN limits its power of representation. 2) Grammarbased methods. Ryoo and Aggarwal [13] used the contextfree grammar (CFG) to model and recognize composite hu-man activities. Ivanov and Bobick [10] proposed a hier-archical approach using a stochastic context free grammar(SCFG). Joo and Chellappa [17] used probabilistic attributegrammars to recognize multi-agent activities in surveillancesettings. Zhang et al [19] applied an extended grammar ap-proach to modeling and recognizing complex visual events.These methods focus on the hierarchical structure of events,but the temporal relations between sub-events are not fullyutilized. There are other methods for event representa-tion and reasoning in the higher level, such as VEML and

Figure 1. The Detection result of objects in an office scene, the ob-jects of interest include cup, phone, laptop, trash-can, bucket, teabox, microwave, dispenser and white board. The tea box and thewhite board can not be detected automatically and are correctedby user.

VERL[1, 4], and PADS[3].In this paper, we represent events by Stochastic Context

Sensitive Grammar (SCSG). The SCSG is embodied in anAnd-Or Graph (AoG) which was first introduced to com-pute vision in [6] and [20], and has been used in [9] to ana-lyze sports videos. The AoG represents the hierarchical de-compositions from events to sub-events to atomic actions.Leaf nodes for atomic actions are defined by a set of fluents(time varying properties) of the agents and their interactionswith objects in the scene. And-nodes represent the compo-sition and routine (chronological order) of their sub-nodes.Or-nodes represent the alternative ways to realize a certainevent, where each alternative has an associated probabilityto account for its branching frequency.

In contrast to HMMs and DBN, in the AoG, the And-nodes express long time sequence and enforce the higherorder constraints than HMMs, the Or-nodes enable the re-configuration of the structures, and thus are more expres-sive that the fix-structured DBN. The AoG also representsthe temporal relations between multiple sub-events by thehorizontal links between the nodes, by which, the temporalrelations are better utilized than they are in CFG and SCFG.

The contributions of our paper are: 1) We represent theatomic actions by a set of relations. 2) Our algorithm canafford to generate all possible parse graphs of single events,combine the parse graphs to obtain the interpretation ofthe input video, and achieve the global maximum posteriorprobability. 3) The agent’s goal and intent at each time pointis inferred by bottom-up and top-down process based on theparse graphs contained in the most probable interpretation.4) We show that the detection result of atomic actions canbe improved by event contexts.

We collect a video data set, which includes videos ofdaily life captured both in indoor and outdoor scenes toevaluate the proposed algorithm. The events in the videos

Figure 2. The unary relations or fluents. The left are four fluentsof agent: ’Stand’, ’Stretch’, ’Bend’ and ’Sit’. The right shows twofluents (’On’ and ’Off’) of a phone and a laptop screen.

Figure 3. The binary spatial relations between agents (or parts) andbackground objects.

include single-agent events, multi-agent events, and concur-rent events. The result of the algorithm are evaluated by hu-man subjects and our experiments show satisfactory results.

2. Event representation by AoG

The AoG includes And-nodes, Or-nodes, leaf nodes andhigher order temporal relations. The structures of the AoGare learned automatically from the training data as in ourcompanion paper [16], the parameters and temporal rela-tions are also learned from the training data.

2.1. Atomic actions — the leaf nodes

We define an atomic action as a set of relations a ={r1, ...rJ} including both unary and binary relations.

• An unary relation r(A) is also called the fluent, i.e. atime varying property of the agent or object A in thescene. As Figure 2 shows, it could be the pose (e.g.stand and bend) and object states (e.g. on and off).

• A binary relation r(A,B) is the spatial relation (e.g.touch and near) between A,B which could be agents,body parts (hands, feet), and objects. Figure 3 illus-trates some typical relations.

There are 13 classes of interest objects including cup,laptop, water dispenser in our training and test data. These

Figure 4. Examples of atomic actions, each relation is shown by2 half-circles that are bonded together. For the action of ’shakinghands’, A,B are both agents.

objects should be detected automatically, however, detec-tion of multi-class objects in a complex scene cannot besolved perfectly by the state-of-art. Therefore, we adopta semi-automatic object detection system. The objects ineach scene are detected by the Multi-class boosting withfeature sharing [18], and the detection result is interactivelyedited. This is not time consuming as it is done only oncefor each scene, and the objects of interest are tracked auto-matically during the video events. Figure 1 shows the de-tection result of the objects of interest in an office.

We use a background subtraction algorithm to detect theagents and fluent changes of objects, and we use a commer-cial surveillance system to track the detected agents, bothwith errors and ambiguities which are to be corrected byhierarchical event contexts. The unary relations of agentsand objects are detected by computing the properties of theforeground area such as the aspect ratio and intensity his-togram of the bounding box, and a probability is obtained.The binary relations are defined on the positions of A andB. A and B could be agents (parts) and objects. The headand hands of agent are detected by skin color detection inthe foreground area. We use the normal distribution as thedetection rule of these relations. The parameters of the dis-tribution can be learned from the training data.

When a relation involves an object, the object is trackeduntil the relation finishes and the new position of the objectwill be updated.

Figure 4 shows three examples of the atomic actions. Ta-ble 1 lists the 28 atomic actions used in the office scene.There are totally n = 34 atomic actions in our experiments.An atomic action is detected when all its relations are de-tected with probability higher than a given threshold, andthe probability of the atomic action is computed as the prod-uct of the probabilities of all its relations. An atomic actiona = {r1, ..., rJ}, has the following probability given frame

NodeName

Semantic Name NodeName

Semantic Name

a1 arrive at phone a9 leave phonea2 arrive at trash-can a10 leave trash-cana3 arrive at basin a11 leave basina4 arrive at dispenser a12 leave dispensera5 arrive at tea box a13 leave tea boxa6 arrive at board a14 leave boarda7 arrive at laptop a15 leave laptopa8 arrive at microwave a16 leave microwavea17 use laptop a18 read papera19 use tea box a20 use phonea21 use dispenser a22 use microwavea23 bend down a24 nulla25 work a26 discussa27 enter a28 exit

Table 1. The atomic action in the office scene which are the termi-nal nodes in AoG representation.

It,

p(a | It) =1

Z

J∏j=1

p(rj) ∝ exp{−E(a)} (1)

where E(a) = −∑J

j=1 log p(rj) is the energy of a andZ =

∑n=34i=1 (p(a) | It) is the normalization factor, over all

possible atomic actions.Given the input video I∧ in a time interval ∧ = [0, T ],

multiple atomic actions are detected with probability ateach frame to account for the ambiguities in the relationscontained in the atomic actions, for example, the relation’touch’ cannot be clearly differentiated from relation ’near’unless kinect is used. The other reason is the inaccuracy offoreground detection. Fortunately, most of the ambiguitiescan be removed by the event context, we will show this inthe experiment section.

2.2. Event composition by And, Or & Set nodes

An event category is represented by a 6-tuple AoG =<S, VN , VT , R,Σ, P >. It embodies a stochastic context sen-sitive grammar (SCSG). S is the root node for an event cat-egory, VN = V and ∪ V or is the set of non-terminal nodes(events and sub-events) composed of an And-node set andan Or-node set. Each And-node represents an event or sub-event, and is decomposed into sub-events or atomic actionsas its children nodes. These children nodes must occur incertain temporal order. An Or-node points to a number ofalternative ways to realize an event or sub-event, and eachalternative has a probability associated with it to indicate thefrequency of occurrence. The Set-node is a special Or-nodewhich can repeat m times, and is associated with a proba-bility p(m) that accounts for the time warping effects. VT

is a set of terminal nodes for atomic actions. R is a num-ber of relations between the nodes (temporal relations), Σis the set of all valid configurations (possible realizations of

Figure 5. AoG of events in the office scene. S is the root node which represents the sequential events happened in the office. It is a Set-node and could be any combinations of K single events. For example, S could be E1|E2|E1E2|E3E2E3|.... E1, ..., E7 are And-nodesrepresenting single events. The atomic actions are also represented by Set-nodes, and could last for 1 to n frames. The temporal relationsare given by the ratio of the lasting time between related nodes. For clarity, only the temporal relations between sub-events are shown.

the events) derivable from the AoG, i.e. its language, and Pis the probability model defined on the graph. The AoG ofevents in the office scene is shown in Figure 5.

2.3. Non­parametric temporal relations

The And-nodes have already defined the chronologi-cal order of its sub-nodes, and the Set-nodes representingatomic actions have modeled the lasting time of the atomicaction by the frequency of its production rules. In addition,we augment the AoG by adding temporal relations to regu-late the durations of nodes in events.

Unlike [10] and [19] which use Allen’s 7 binary tempo-ral relations [12], we use non-parametric filters to constrainthe durations between multiple nodes. We use the AoG ofE1 in Figure 5 to illustrate the temporal relations. E1 isan And-node and has three child nodes A, B and C whosedurations are τA, τB and τC respectively. For example, anagent bends down in A, does something in B, and stands upin C. The sub-event B could be ’pick up an object’ or ’tieshoe laces’. The two cases can only be distinguished fromthe relative duration τB with respect to τA, τC . Also, whenan agent performs event E1 in a hurry, the durations of A,B and C will be shorter than usual, while the ratio of thelasting time between A, B and C will remain stable. Wedenote a temporal filter as F = (F1, F2, F3), and we mea-sure how well the durations τE1 = (τA, τB , τC) fits to thisfilter by their inner product Tr =< τE1 , F > in the sameway as image filters. The response Tr follows a continuousdistribution,

p(Tr) ∼ h(< τ, F ∗ >) (2)

Where h is the histogram calculated for Tr from the train-ing data. One may use multiple F to model the relations ifneeded. The selection of these filters follows the minimumentropy principle [20] that chooses filters telling the most

difference between the observed histogram and the synthe-sis histogram according to the current model.

2.4. Parse graph

A parse graph is an instance of the AoG obtained byselecting variables at the Or-nodes and specifying the at-tributes of And-nodes and terminal nodes. We use pg todenote the parse graph of the AoG of a single event Ei. Wedenote the following components in pg:

• V t(pg) = {a1, ..., ant(pg)} is the set of leaf nodes inpg.

• V or(pg) = {v1, ..., vnor(pg)} is the set of non-emptyOr-nodes in pg, p(vi) is the probability that vi choosesits sub-nodes in pg.

• R(pg) = {Tr1, ..., T rn(R)} is the set of temporal re-lations between the nodes in pg.

The energy of pg is defined as in[20]

ε(pg) =∑

ai∈V t(pg)

E(ai) +∑

vi∈V or(pg)

− log p(vi)

+∑

Tri∈R(pg)

− log p(Tri)(3)

The first term is the data term, it expresses the energy ofthe detected leaf nodes (atomic actions) which is computedby eqn 1. The second term is the frequency term, it accountsfor how frequently each Or-node decomposes a certain way,and can be learned from the training data. The third term isthe relation term which models the temporal relations be-tween the nodes in pg and can be computed by eqn 2.

Figure 6. (a) A small AoG. (b) A typical input of the algorithm.(c),(d) and (e) are three possible parse graphs (interpretations)of the video I∧[t1,t4]. Each interpretation segments the videoI∧[t1,t4] into single events at the event level and into atomic ac-tions at the atomic action level.

Given input video I∧ in a time interval ∧ = [0, T ]. Weuse PG to denote parse graph for a sequence of events in Sand to explain the I∧. PG is of the following form,

PG = (K, pg1, ..., pgK) (4)

where K is the number of parse graphs of single event.

3. Event parsingFirstly we will show the event parsing process by assum-

ing that there is only one agent in the scene in section 3.1 -3.3. In section 3.4 we will show how to parse events whenthere are multiple agents in the scene.

3.1. Formulation of event parsing

The input of our algorithm is a video I∧ in a time interval∧ = [0, T ], and atomic actions are detected at every frameIt. We denote by ∧pgi the time interval of parse graph pgi.PG = (K, pg1, ..., pgK) is regarded as an interpretation ofI∧ when {

∪Ki=1∧pgi = ∧

∧pgi ∩ ∧pgj = ∅ ∀ij i ̸= j(5)

We use a small AoG in Figure 6(a) to illustrate the algo-rithm. Figure 6(b) shows a sample input of atomic actions.Note that there are multiple atomic actions at each timepoint. Figure 6(c), (d) and (e) show three possible parsegraphs (interpretations) of the input up to time t4. PG1 =(1, pg1) in figure 6(c) is an interpretation of the video I[t1,t4]and it segments I[t1,t4] into one single event E1 at the eventlevel, and segments I[t1,t4] into three atomic actions a1, a3and a4 at the atomic action level. PG2 = (2, pg2, pg3) inFigure 6(d) segments I[t1,t4] into two single events E1 andE2, where E2 is inserted in the process of E1. SimilarlyPG3 = (2, pg4, pg5) in 6(e) is another parse graph and seg-ments I[t1,t4] into two single events E1 and E2.

The segmentation of events is automatically integrated inthe parsing process and each interpretation could segmentthe video I∧ into single events, and remove the ambiguitiesin the detection of atomic actions by the event context. Theenergy of PG is

E(PG | I∧) = p(K)K∑

k=1

(ε(pgk | I∧pgk)− log p(k)) (6)

where p(k) is the prior probability of the single event whoseparse graph in PG is pgk, and p(K) is a penalty item that

follows the poisson distribution as p(K) =λKT e−λT

K! whereλT is the expected number of parse graphs in I∧. The prob-ability for PG is of the following form

p(PG | I∧) =1

Zexp{−E(PG | I∧)} (7)

where Z is the normalization factor and is summed over allPG as Z =

∑PG exp{−E(PG | I∧)}. The most likely

interpretation of I∧ can be found by maximizing the follow-ing posterior probability

PG∗ = argmaxPG

p(PG | I∧) (8)

When the most possible interpretation is obtained, thegoal at frame IT can be inferred as the single event whoseparse graph pgi explains IT , and the intent can be predictedby the parse graph pgi.

3.2. Generating parse graphs of single events

We implemented an online parsing algorithm for AoGbased on Earley’s [11] parser to generate parse graphs basedon the input data. Earley’s algorithm reads terminal sym-bols sequentially, creating a set of all pending derivations(states) that is consistent with the input up to the current in-put terminal symbol. Given the next input symbol, the pars-ing algorithm iteratively performs one of three basic oper-ations (prediction, scanning and completion) for each statein the current state set.

For clarity, we use two simple AoGs of E1 and E2 with-out set nodes as shown in Figure7(a) to show the parsingprocess. Here we consider the worst case, that is, at eachtime, the input will contain all the atomic actions in E1 andE2 as shown in Figure7(b). At time t0, in the predictionstep, E1’ s first atomic action a1 and E2’ s first atomic ac-tion a4 are put in the open list. At time t1, in the scanningstep, since a1 and a4 are in the input, they are scanned in andthere are two partial parse graphs at t1 as shown in Figure7(c). Notice that we do not remove a1 and a4 from the openlist. This is because the input is ambiguous, if the input at t1is really a1, then it cannot be a4 and should not be scannedin and should stay in the open list waiting for the next input.It is the same that if the input at t1 is really a4. Then based

Figure 7. (a) The two AoGs of single event E1 and E2. (b) Theinput in the worst case. (c) The parse graphs at time t1. (d) Theparse graphs at time t2

on the parse graphs, a2, a3 and a5 are predicted and put inthe open list. Then at time t1, we have a1, a2, a3, a4, a5 inthe open list. At time t2, all of the five nodes in the open listare scanned in and we will have 7 parse graphs (five newparse graphs plus the two parse graphs at t1) as shown inFigure 7(d). The two parse graphs at t1 are kept unchangedat t2 to preserve the ambiguities in the input. This processwill continue iteratively and all the possible parse graphs ofE1 and E2 will be generated.

3.3. Run­time incremental event parsing

As time passes, the number of parse graphs will increaserapidly and the number of the possible interpretations of theinput will become huge, as Figure 8(a) shows. However, thenumber of acceptable interpretations (PG with probabilityhigher than a given threshold) does not keep increasing, itwill fluctuate and drop sharply at certain time, as shown inFigure 8(b). We call these time points the ”decision mo-ments”. This resembles human cognition. When peoplewatch others taking some actions, the number of possibleevents could be huge, but at certain times, when some criti-cal actions occurred, most of the alternative interpretationscan be ruled out.

Our parsing algorithm behaves in a similar way. At eachframe, we compute the probabilities of all the possible inter-pretations and only the acceptable interpretations are kept.The parse graphs which are not contained in any of theseacceptable interpretations are pruned. This will reduce thecomplexity of the proposed algorithm greatly.

3.4. Multi­agent Event parsing

When there are multiple agents in the scene, we can doevent parsing for each agent separately. That is, for eachagent in the scene, the atomic actions are detected (all otheragents are regarded as objects in the scene) and parsed asmentioned above, then the interpretations of all the agentsin the scene are obtained.

Figure 8. (a) The number of possible interpretations (in logarithm)vs time (in seconds). (b) The number of acceptable interpretationsvs time. The decision moments are the time points on which thecritical actions happen and the number of acceptable interpreta-tions drops sharply.

Figure 9. Sample image shots from the collected videos.

4. Experiments

4.1. Data collection

For evaluation, we collect videos in 5 indoor and outdoorscenes, include office, lab, hallway, corridor and aroundvending machines. Figure 9 shows some screen-shots ofthe videos. The training video total lasts for 60 minutes,and contains 34 types of atomic actions (28 of the 34 typesof atomic actions are listed in Table 1 for the office scene)and 12 events categories. Each event happens 3 to 10 times.

The structures of the AoG are learned automaticallyfrom the training data as in our companion paper[16], theparameters and temporal relations are also learned fromthe training data. The testing video lasts 50 minutes andcontains 12 event categories, including single-agent eventslike getting water and using a microwave, and multi-agentevents like discussing at the white board and exchanging ob-jects. The testing video also includes event insertion suchas making a call while getting water.

4.2. Atomic action recognition with event context

Figure 10 shows the ROC curve of the recognition resultsof all the atomic actions in the testing data. The ROC iscomputed by changing the threshold used in the detectionof atomic actions. From the ROC curve we can see thatwith event context, the recognition rate of atomic actions isimproved greatly.

Figure 10. The ROC curve of recognition results of atomic actions.

Figure 11. Experiment results of event recognition which involvemultiple agents. Agent P1 works during frames 4861 to 6196,agent P2 enters the room from frames 6000 to 6196, then they goto the white board, have a discussion and leave the board. Thesemantic meaning of the atomic actions could be found in Table 1.

Scene Number of eventinstances

Correct Accuracy

Office 32 29 0.906Lab 12 12 1.000Hallway 23 23 1.000Corridor 9 8 0.888Outdoor 11 11 1.000

Table 2. Recognition accuracy of our algorithm.

4.3. Event Recognition

The performance of event recognition is shown in Table2. Figure 11 shows the recognition results of events whichmay involve multiple agents and happen concurrently.

4.4. Goal inference and intent prediction

Besides the classification rate, we also evaluate the pre-cision of the goal inference and intent prediction online. Wecompare the result of the proposed algorithm with 5 humansubjects as was done in the cognitive study with toy exam-ples in a maze world in [7]. The participants viewed thevideos with several judgement points, at each judgementpoint, the participants were asked to infer the goal of theagent and predict his next action with probability.

Figure 12 (a) shows five judgement points of an eventinsertion (making a call in the process of getting water).Figure 12 (b) shows the experimental results of event seg-mentation and insertion. Figure 12 (c) shows the goal in-

Figure 12. Experiment results of event segmentation, insertion,goal inference and intent prediction. The semantic meaning ofthe atomic actions in (d) could be found in Table 1.

ference result obtained by participants and our algorithmrespectively, and Figure 12 (d) shows the intent predictionresults. Our algorithm can predict one or multiple steps ac-cording to the parse graph. Here we only show the result ofpredicting one step. Although the probabilities of the goalinference and intent prediction results are not the same asthe average of the participants, the final classifications arethe same. In the testing video, we set 30 judgement pointsin the middle of events. The accuracy of goal inference is90% and the accuracy of intent prediction is 87%.

4.5. Event interpolation

When some atomic actions are not detected because ofocclusions or missing detections in the input data, theseatomic actions are interpolated as follows: For each pre-dicted atomic action ai, if it is not detected at the next timepoint, we will add ai in the detection results of atomic ac-tion with a low probability. After parsing, the missed atomicactions will be interpolated by the event context.

We tested the performance of event interpolation, asshown in Figure 13. During the process of getting water,another agent appeared and occluded the agent, then theatomic action ‘use dispenser‘ can not be detected. By ouralgorithm, the atomic action ‘use dispenser‘ can be inter-

Figure 13. (a) (b) and (c) are three representative frame of atomicaction ’arrive dispenser’, ’use dispenser’ and ’leave dispenser’ re-spectively.

Table 3. Qualitative Comparison with Previous Work

polated by event interpolation and the whole event can berecognized as well. In the testing video, there are 9 atomicactions that could not be detected because of viewing angleand occlusion. We also remove 21 detected atomic actionsfrom the detection results to test the performance of eventinterpolation. By event interpolation, 27 of the 30 missingand occluded atomic actions are ”detected” successfully.

5. Conclusion and Future work

We present an AoG representation and an algorithm forparsing video events with goal inference and intent predic-tion. Our experiments results show that events, includingevents involve multi-agents and events that happen concur-rently can be recognized accurately, and the ambiguity inthe recognition of atomic actions can be reduced largely us-ing hierarchical event contexts. In Table 3 we compare theproposed algorithm with previous work.

The objects of interest in the scene are detected semi-automatically at present. The event context provides a lotof information of the objects involved in the event, and canbe utilized to detect and recognize objects. We refer to acompanion paper[16] for details of learning the AoG andsemantic labeling of small objects in the scenes. As kinectcan get 3D information precisely in indoor scene, we planto use kinect to detect more meticulous atomic actions, andparse more complex events in future work.

Demos and data set are available atcivs.stat.ucla.edu/Event/EventParsing.htmlAcknowledgement This work is done when Pei is a re-search fellow at UCLA. We thank the support of NSFgrant IIS-1018751,ONR MURI grant N00014-10-1-0933and N00014-11-c-0308 at UCLA. The authors also thankthe support of NSF of China grant 90920009.

References[1] A.Hakeem and M.Shah. Ontology and taxonomy collabo-

rated frame work for meeting classification. ICPR, 2004. 2[2] M. Al-Hames and G. Rigoll. A multi-modal mixed-state dy-

namic bayesian network for robust meeting event recognitionfrom disturbed data. IEEE ICME, 2005. 1

[3] M. Albanese, R. Chellappa, V. Moscato, and V. Subrahma-nian. Pads: A probabilistic activity detection framework forvideo data. PAMI, 2010. 2

[4] B.Georis, M.Maziere, F.Bremond, and M.Thonnat. A videointerpretation platform applied to bank agency monitoring.Proc,2nd Workshop of Intelligent. Distributed SurveillanceSystem, 2004. 2

[5] M. Brand, N. Oliver, and A. Pentland. Coupled hiddenmarkov models for complex action recognition. CVPR,1997. 1

[6] H. Chen, Z. J. Xu, Z. Q. Liu, and S. C. Zhu. Compositetemplates for cloth modeling and sketching. CVPR, 2006. 2

[7] R. S. Chris L.Baker and J. B.Tenenbaum. Action understand-ing as inverse planning. Cognitions, 2009. 1, 7

[8] G. Csibra and G. Gergely. Obsessed with goals: Functionsand mechanisms of teleological interpretation of actions inhumans. Acta Psychologica, 2007. 1

[9] A. Gupta, P. Srinivasan, J. Shi, and L. S. Davis. Learninga visually grounded storyline model from annotated videos.CVPR, 2009. 2

[10] Y. A. Ivanov and A. F. Bobick. Recognition of visual activ-ities and interactions by stochastic parsing. PAMI, 8, 2000.1, 4

[11] J.C.Earley. An Efficient Context-Free Parsing Algorithm.PhD thesis, Carnegie-Mellon Univ, 1968. 5

[12] J.F.Allen and G.Ferguson. Actions and events in intervaltemporal logic. Journal of Logic Computation, 4, 1994. 4

[13] M.S.Ryoo and J.K.Aggarwal. Recognition of composite hu-man activities through context-free grammar based represen-tation. CVPR, 2006. 1

[14] P. Natarajan and R. Nevatia. Coupled hidden semi markovmodels for activity recognition. IEEE Workshop on Motionand Video Computing, 2007. 1

[15] K. Otsuka, J. Yamato, Y. Takemae, and H. Murase. Conver-sation scene analysis with dynamic bayesian network basedon visual head tracking. ICME, 2006. 1

[16] Z. Si, M. Pei, B. Yao, and S.-C. Zhu. Unsupervised learningof events and scene semantics from video. ICCV, 2011. 2, 6,8

[17] S.W.Joo and R.Chellappa. Recognition of multi-objectevents using attribute grammars. Processing of internationalconference of image process, 2006. 1

[18] A. Torralba, K. P. Murphy, and W. T. Freeman. Sharing vi-sual features for multiclass and multiview object detection.PAMI, 2007. 3

[19] Z. Zhang, T. Tan, and K. Huang. An extended grammarsystem for learning and recognizing complex visual events.PAMI, 2011. 1, 4

[20] S.-C. Zhu and D. Mumford. A stochastic grammar of images.Foundat. Trends Comput graphics Vision, 2, 2007. 2, 4