Exploring Orientation Invariant Heuristic Features with Variant Window Length of 1D-CNN-LSTM in Human Activity Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies have explored divergent deep neural networks in human activity recognition (HAR) using a single accelerometer sensor. Multiple types of deep neural networks, such as convolutional neural networks (CNN), long short-term memory (LSTM), or their hybridization (CNN-LSTM), have been implemented. However, the sensor orientation problem poses challenges in HAR, and the length of windows as inputs for the deep neural networks has mostly been adopted arbitrarily. This paper explores the effect of window lengths with orientation invariant heuristic features on the performance of 1D-CNN-LSTM in recognizing six human activities; sitting, lying, walking and running at three different speeds using data from an accelerometer sensor encapsulated into a smartphone. Forty-two participants performed the six mentioned activities by keeping smartphones in their pants pockets with arbitrary orientation. We conducted an inter-participant evaluation using 1D-CNN-LSTM architecture. We found that the average accuracy of the classifier was saturated to 80 ± 8.07% for window lengths greater than 65 using only four selected simple orientation invariant heuristic features. In addition, precision, recall and F1-measure in recognizing stationary activities such as sitting and lying decreased with increment of window length, whereas we encountered an increment in recognizing the non-stationary activities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".