Similarity Embedding Networks for Robust Human Activity Recognition
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
Deep learning models for human activity recognition (HAR) based on sensor data have been heavily studied recently. However, the generalization ability of deep models on complex real-world HAR data is limited by the availability of high-quality labeled activity data, which are hard to obtain. In this article, we design a similarity embedding neural network that maps input sensor signals onto real vectors through carefully designed convolutional and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) layers. The embedding network is trained with a pairwise similarity loss, encouraging the clustering of samples from the same class in the embedded real space, and can be effectively trained on a small dataset and even on a noisy dataset with mislabeled samples. Based on the learned embeddings, we further propose both nonparametric and parametric approaches for activity recognition. Extensive evaluation based on two public datasets has shown that the proposed similarity embedding network significantly outperforms state-of-the-art deep models on HAR classification tasks, is robust to mislabeled samples in the training set, and can also be used to effectively denoise a noisy dataset.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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