Qualitative Action Recognition by Wireless Radio Signals in Human–Machine Systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human-machine systems required a deep understanding of human behaviors. Most existing research on action recognition has focused on discriminating between different actions, however, the quality of executing an action has received little attention thus far. In this paper, we study the quality assessment of driving behaviors and present WiQ, a system to assess the quality of actions based on radio signals. This system includes three key components, a deep neural network based learning engine to extract the quality information from the changes of signal strength, a gradient-based method to detect the signal boundary for an individual action, and an activity-based fusion policy to improve the recognition performance in a noisy environment. By using the quality information, WiQ can differentiate a triple body status with an accuracy of 97%, whereas for identification among 15 drivers, the average accuracy is 88%. Our results show that, via dedicated analysis of radio signals, a fine-grained action characterization can be achieved, which can facilitate a large variety of applications, such as smart driving assistants.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it