MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006292530 · doi:10.1145/3366486.3366509

Human Activity Classification in Underwater using Sonar and Deep Learning

2019· article· en· W3006292530 on OpenAlexaff
Hovannes Kulhandjian, Narayanan Ramachandran, Michel Kulhandjian, Claude D’Amours

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGait Recognition and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpectrogramSonarConvolutional neural networkUnderwaterComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceDoppler effectPattern recognition (psychology)SIGNAL (programming language)Feature extractionFeature (linguistics)WaveformUnderwater acousticsAcousticsSpeech recognitionGeologyRadarTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we study the classification of human activity on the surface of a body of water using sonar. In particular, we investigate the classification of three different swimming styles; freestyle, butterfly, and backstroke. Experiments are conducted in a swimming pool to capture acoustic micro-Doppler signatures produced by the different swimming styles. Two acoustic hydrophones are used underwater; one to transmit a single tone signal in the direction of a swimmer and the other to receive the reflected waveform from the swimmer's body. We apply joint time-frequency analysis on the received acoustic signal to extract the micro-Doppler signatures present in the spectrogram. Each of these swimming style activities presents their own unique micro-Doppler signatures. To classify the acoustic micro-Doppler signatures, we explore a deep convolution neural network (DCNN) algorithm. Spectrogram can be considered as an image in which case applying DCNN can serve well for feature recognition purposes. We show that using the spectrogram images the DCNN algorithm can classify different swimming styles performed on the surface of the water with fairly high accuracy. Using the collected data set, we performed experiments where we used 80% of the data for training and the remaining 20% for validation purposes. The DCNN algorithm averaged 93.7% accuracy during training while it had a 90.8% average validation accuracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGait Recognition and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207