Diving Deeper Into Pedestrian Behavior Understanding: Intention Estimation, Action Prediction, and Event Risk Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we delve into the pedestrian behavior understanding problem from the perspective of three different tasks: intention estimation, action prediction, and event risk assessment. We first define the tasks and discuss how these tasks are represented and annotated in two widely used pedestrian datasets, JAAD and PIE. We then propose a new benchmark based on these definitions, available annotations, and three new classes of metrics, each designed to assess different aspects of the model performance.We apply the new evaluation approach to examine four SOTA prediction models on each task and compare their performance w.r.t. metrics and input modalities. In particular, we analyze the differences between intention estimation and action prediction tasks by considering various scenarios and contextual factors. Lastly, we examine model agreement across these two tasks to show their complementary role. The proposed benchmark reveals new facts about the role of different data modalities, the tasks, and relevant data properties. We conclude by elaborating on our findings and proposing future research directions <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup>.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".