MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ALSensing: Human Activity Recognition using WiFi based on Active Learning

2023· article· en· W4376480569 on OpenAlexaff
Guangzhi Zhao, Zhipeng Zhou, Yutao Huang, Amiya Nayak, Wei Gong, Haoquan Zhou

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndoor and Outdoor Localization Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaSimon Fraser University
FundersHORIZON EUROPE Health
KeywordsComputer scienceBaseline (sea)Artificial intelligenceActivity recognitionDeep learningMachine learningTraining (meteorology)Training setActive learning (machine learning)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past years, Human Activity Recognition (HAR) has shown its great value and has been further developed with the help of deep learning. However, existing HAR systems that use deep learning methods to achieve the ideal accuracy of recognition heavily rely on massive amounts of labeled training samples. Unfortunately, it requires considerable human effort and is unrealistic for real-life applications. In this paper, we propose a novel system, which combines active learning with WiFi-based HAR. The system is capable of building a good activities recognizer in HAR with a limited amount of labeled training samples. We thus call the system ALSensing. To the best of our knowledge, ALSensing is the first system to apply active learning to WiFi-based HAR. We implement ALSensing using commercial WiFi devices and evaluated it with realistic data in several different environments. Our experimental results show that ALSensing achieves 52.83% recognition accuracy using 3.7% training samples, 58.97% recognition accuracy using 15% training samples and the baseline predicted with the existing method achieves 62.19% recognition accuracy using 100% training samples. When the performance of ALSensing is similar to that of the baseline, the required labeled samples are much less than that of the baseline.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIndoor and Outdoor Localization TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207