I would like to ask a question about affiliation of richardalligier who achieved a score of 35.5m from the first attempt. It is easy to find his Github profile where it’s clear that he has been working with OpenSky Network data since at least 2018 and have several research papers related to this competition. It doesn’t look like a fair competition now as he seems to be connected with OpenSky Network. They most likely know him as they provided the data for his research for a couple of years now. I would encourage you to consider his eligibility to participate in this competition. Otherwise the whole idea of competition to search for fresh ideas will be compromised.
Get a good lawyer and they will regret doing this.
Dear Sergei Markochev,
Concerning my results at the first attempt, we have 7 training/test sets, so plenty of ressources to tweak and tune our models. I started to have good results on these test sets two weeks ago but I did not make a submission. I felt like it would hint my opponents that a ~50m accuracy would be achievable. As the competition is soon ending, I made a submission just to know where I was.
Since 2018, I have been working with ADS-B data provided by OpenSky Network. As it was pure ADS-B data, these data did not contain any “nanosecond receiving date” from several receivers. Again, my research work was only on climbing data with consolidated ADS-B data, not nanoseconds timestamps from several receivers.
Concerning my links with OpenSky Network, I applied to get ADS-B data in 2017 on their website https://opensky-network.org/ like anyone can or could. I only exchanged a few emails with OpenSky staff, mostly regarding the exact meaning of the variables inside the data they shared with me. I think a lot of researchers are in such a case, dozens, maybe a hundred.
Concerning my eligibility, it is up to the organizers to decide. Should they rule I am not eligible, I would accept their decision but I worked dozens of hours on this competition like anyone participating in this competition.
As you confirmed you have already worked with very similar OpenSky Network data, I’ll still highlight my position. The fact that you have been working with very similar data from OpenSky for 2 years makes the competition unfair and pointless to other participants which don’t have practice with this data and pre-existing models prior to the competition. Nobody from the other participants have had access to the data as well as so much time you had to practice with it before the competition. I hope that organisers will follow the fare principles and I would like to wait for their decision.
Working with ADS-B data is a very common thing. Just looking at the names on the leaderboard, I could point at least 7 persons who have experience with ADS-B data.
In addition, again, the nanoseconds timestamps from several receivers (which are central in this competition) are not included in usual ADS-B data.
I doubt it. I comply with the rules of the competition. I am not affiliated with the OpenSky Network or the CYD Campus.
Our rules are clear and have been from the beginning, they are about affiliation with the organisers’ institutions. It is to prevent access to test data, or any inside knowledge from the organisers.
Intentionally not excluded by the rules: Working with a) OpenSky data (which, after all, is just ADS-B data as it is collected from many receivers) or b) in the well-known multilateration research space in general is not an issue. Quite the contrary, we encourage those with a lot of experience to take part in order to get the very best solutions. People taking part in our earlier competition are also not excluded for the very same reason.
I don’t know if “sniping” with good solutions at the end is considered poor form in these competitions, but it is not against our rules.
NB: OpenSky data in general does not have the timing and RSS data necessary for localization. These were extracted specifically for this competition.
- You shoud not sue AIcrowd they are non western small company and no point suing them.
c) any legal or judicial remedy that you seek to obtain for an Organizer’s actions or omissions or other third parties regarding a Challenge, including the payment of any Rewards, shall be limited to a claim against the particular Organizer or other responsible third parties, and you shall not make any claim or attempt to impose any liability on AIcrowd with respect to those actions or omissions.
- They broke several rules and laws and good customs. Including AI ToU
2.1. In relation to Participants . As Participants, you participate to the Challenge strictly as independent third-party and not as an employee, agent or partner of AIcrowd or of an Organizer.
GET A LAWYER!!! You will get much more then 1st prize money. AND YOU WILL TEACH THEM A LESSON AND DO A GOOD THING FOR THE COMMUNITY!
There are international laws and customs that prohibit such a fraud and its extemely easy to prove it.
ITS A SWISS JURISDICTION SO SHOULD BE NO PROBLEM!
12. Governing law and jurisdiction
Governing Law. These ToU, Participation Terms, Challenge Guideline and the providing of the Services shall be governed by and construed in accordance with Swiss substantive law, without reference to its conflict of laws provisions.
Jurisdiction. Any dispute or difference arising out of or in relation to these ToU, Participation Terms, Challenge Guideline or the providing of the Services shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the competent courts at the registered office of AIcrowd, subject to the right of appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal.
Are you sure?
If so you have nothing to worry about. However I have a friend in zurich, he is young lawyer and he will be happy to take you to the court, you and SKY…
What are you talking about?
Yes, Richard has experience in the field and this gives him some advantage. But this is FAIR advantage. He has no access to test data, no information about how data was collected, etc. He breaks no rules.
With the same points, you can claim people who work as ML engineers as they know how to use machine learning techniques already, but somebody needs to learn it during the competition.
For sure I also want to win, but if somebody with more experience will win that’s ok. I will just check his solution and study from it. Please keep your heads cold.
My point is there is no rules violation.
Good luck to all competitors.
I appreciate discussing the topic in the open, and very much appreciate the clarifications provided by @richardalligier and @masorx.
I am also particularly disappointed by the tone of the messages by @UserSerb.
As someone who has been working quite hard to help shape the AIcrowd Community, I am convinced this behavior is not welcome here.
Coming back to the actual topic of this thread. Here is what we know :
@richardalligier has been working with the raw ADS-B data by applying to get access to the data via the OpenSky Network webpage. As any other researcher interested in the topic could very well get.
- As confirmed by @masorx, Richard has no affiliation with OpenSky network, AIcrowd, and has no privileged access to the test sets, or any private decisions made when designing the competition.
- As confirmed by @masorx, the raw OpenSky data that Richard had access to does not have the timinig and the RSS data that are key to this competition.
I acknowledge the concerns of @sergei_markochev, but they have been very well cleared by @masorx.
If we host a competition around a dataset derived from ImageNet, it will be really hard to dis-qualify all the participants who have had experience working on the ImageNet before the competition began (again by requesting access to the dataset through the website like any other researcher).
Conditional on the fact that @richardalligier and @masorx have established their positions correctly, my personal assessment on this topic is that there has been no violation of rules.
@UberSerb: The tone of your messages are not in the spirit of the community that we are trying to build here. We acknowledge your threats to sue everyone involved, but we cannot also sit silently while you harass members of our community publicly. We welcome you and “your friend in zurich” to send us a legal notice, if you can even actually make a case. You can reach out to us at email@example.com.
If we receive another incident report on harassment related to your account, we will have to suspend your account.
To avoid situations like these, at AIcrowd, we will work urgently to put together a Code of Conduct which can help set guidelines on what behaviors are acceptable in the community and what are not. I apologize for the oversight on our end to not have a mature Code of Conduct in place already.
I finally would like to thank @vitaly_bondar for speaking up. We need more community members like you to help make this is safe space that our members enjoy devoting their time to.
Best of luck to all the competitors.
CEO / Co-Founder,
Thank you very much, @mohanty for your clarification and community engagement. I think we can all grow with our experiences here, and make AICrowd a great platform for all kinds of competitions!
Just to clarify again, Richard is not employed by or affiliated with OpenSky, or any other organising institution (he is at ENAC in France, according to his last publication). He simply has been publishing on ADS-B data for a few years and not with any co-authors from organising institutions either.