Towards Improved Human Action Recognition Using Convolutional Neural Networks and Multimodal Fusion of Depth and Inertial Sensor Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>This paper attempts at improving the accuracy of Human Action Recognition (HAR) by fusion of depth and inertial sensor data. Firstly, we transform the depth data into Sequential Front view Images(SFI) and fine-tune the pre-trained AlexNet on these images. Then, inertial data is converted into Signal Images (SI) and another convolutional neural network (CNN) is trained on these images. Finally, learned features are extracted from both CNN, fused together to make a shared feature layer, and these features are fed to the classifier. We experiment with two classifiers, namely Support Vector Machines (SVM) and softmax classifier and compare their performances. The recognition accuracies of each modality, depth data alone and sensor data alone are also calculated and compared with fusion based accuracies to highlight the fact that fusion of modalities yields better results than individual modalities. Experimental results on UTD-MHAD and Kinect 2D datasets show that proposed method achieves state of the art results when compared to other recently proposed visual-inertial action recognition methods.</p>
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".