Towards the detection of unusual temporal events during activities using HMMs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most of the systems for recognition of activities aim to identify a set of normal human activities. Data is either recorded by computer vision or sensor based networks. These systems may not work properly if an unusual event or abnormal activity occurs, especially ones that have not been encountered in the past. By definition, unusual events are mostly rare and unexpected, and therefore very little or no data may be available for training. In this paper, we focus on the challenging problem of detecting unusual temporal events in a sensor network and present three Hidden Markov Models (HMM) based approaches to tackle this problem. The first approach models each normal activity separately as an HMM and the second approach models all the normal activities together as one common HMM. If the likelihood is lower than a threshold, an unusual event is identified. The third approach models all normal activities together in one HMM and approximates an HMM for the the unusual events. All the methods train HMM models on data of the usual events and do not require training data from the unusual events. We perform our experiments on a Locomotion Analysis dataset that contains gyroscope, force sensor, and accelerometer readings. To test the performance of our approaches, we generate five types of unusual events that represent random activity, extremely unusual events, unusual events similar to specific normal activities, no or little motion and normal activity followed by no or little motion. Our experiments suggest that for a moderately sized time frame window, these approaches can identify all the five types of unusual events with high confidence.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".