Bi-Level Thresholding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In gesture recognition, one challenge that researchers and developers face is the need for recognition strategies that mediate between false positives and false negatives. In this article, we examine bi-level thresholding, a recognition strategy that uses two thresholds: a tighter threshold limits false positives and recognition errors, and a looser threshold prevents repeated errors (false negatives) by analyzing movements in sequence. We first describe early observations that led to the development of the bi-level thresholding algorithm. Next, using a Wizard-of-Oz recognizer, we hold recognition rates constant and adjust for fixed versus bi-level thresholding; we show that systems using bi-level thresholding result in significantly lower workload scores on the NASA-TLX and significantly lower accelerometer variance when performing gesture input. Finally, we examine the effect that bi-level thresholding has on a real-world dataset of wrist and finger gestures, showing an ability to significantly improve measures of precision and recall. Overall, these results argue for the viability of bi-level thresholding as an effective technique for balancing between false positives, recognition errors, and false negatives.
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 | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
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".