MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

TinyHAR: Benchmarking Human Activity Recognition Systems in Resource Constrained Devices

2022· article· en· W4381786635 on OpenAlexaff
Sheikh Nooruddin, Md. Milon Islam, Fakhri Karray

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEdge deviceBenchmarkingConvolutional neural networkInferenceArtificial intelligenceActivity recognitionDeep learningBenchmark (surveying)Machine learningQuantization (signal processing)Context (archaeology)Computer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in deep learning, especially Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) have revolutionized intelligent frame-works such as Human Activity Recognition (HAR) systems by effectively and efficiently inferring human activity from various modalities of data. However, the training and inference of CNNs are often resource-intensive. Recent research developments are focused on bringing the effectiveness of CNNs in resource con-strained edge devices through Tiny Machine Learning (TinyML). However, this is extremely hard to achieve due to the limitations in memory, compute power, and energy of resource constrained edge devices. This paper provides a benchmark to understand these trade-offs among variations of CNN network architectures, different training methodologies, and different modalities of data in the context of HAR, TinyML, and edge devices. We tested and reported the performance of CNN and Depthwise Separable CNN (DSCNN) models as well as two training methodologies: Quantization Aware Training (QAT) and Post-training Quantization (PTQ) on five commonly used benchmark datasets containing image and time-series data: UP-Fall, Fall Detection Dataset (FDD), PAMAP2, UCI-HAR, and WISDM. We also deployed and tested the performance of the model-based standalone applications on multiple commonly available resource constrained edge devices in terms of inference time and power consumption. The experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness and feasibility of Tiny ML for HAR in edge devices.

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)0.002
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207