A Benchmark of Data Stream Classification for Human Activity Recognition on Connected Objects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper evaluates data stream classifiers from the perspective of connected devices, focusing on the use case of Human Activity Recognition. We measure both the classification performance and resource consumption (runtime, memory, and power) of five usual stream classification algorithms, implemented in a consistent library, and applied to two real human activity datasets and three synthetic datasets. Regarding classification performance, the results show the overall superiority of the Hoeffding Tree, the Mondrian forest, and the Naïve Bayes classifiers over the Feedforward Neural Network and the Micro Cluster Nearest Neighbor classifiers on four datasets out of six, including the real ones. In addition, the Hoeffding Tree and—to some extent—the Micro Cluster Nearest Neighbor, are the only classifiers that can recover from a concept drift. Overall, the three leading classifiers still perform substantially worse than an offline classifier on the real datasets. Regarding resource consumption, the Hoeffding Tree and the Mondrian forest are the most memory intensive and have the longest runtime; however, no difference in power consumption is found between classifiers. We conclude that stream learning for Human Activity Recognition on connected objects is challenged by two factors which could lead to interesting future work: a high memory consumption and low F1 scores overall.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".