Low-Rank and Sparse Recovery of Human Gait Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to occlusion or detached markers, information can often be lost while capturing human motion with optical tracking systems. Based on three natural properties of human gait movement, this study presents two different approaches to recover corrupted motion data. These properties are used to define a reconstruction model combining low-rank matrix completion of the measured data with a group-sparsity prior on the marker trajectories mapped in the frequency domain. Unlike most existing approaches, the proposed methodology is fully unsupervised and does not need training data or kinematic information of the user. We evaluated our methods on four different gait datasets with various gap lengths and compared their performance with a state-of-the-art approach using principal component analysis (PCA). Our results showed recovering missing data more precisely, with a reduction of at least 2 mm in mean reconstruction error compared to the literature method. When a small number of marker trajectories is available, our findings showed a reduction of more than 14 mm for the mean reconstruction error compared to the literature approach.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".