Radar Based Fall Detection with Imbalance Data Handling and Data Augmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radar-based fall detection is helping seniors to live independently. In this paper, a new method for fall detection from human activities is proposed using data augmentation and class imbalance handling. Data collected from a radar signal is processed and a time series is obtained by aggregating the individual time series in the fast-time of the radar returns. This time series is used as input to several classifiers to distinguish fall from non-fall activities. To this end, we augment the radar time series data using a Mu-Sigma method. To handle the imbalanced data, we apply the synthetic minority over-sampling technique and class weighting strategy. A comprehensive study is performed to build a supervised learning method with or without data augmentation and imbalanced data handling. The performance of the proposed method is compared with some of the other existing methods using different classifiers including k-nearest neighbors, decision trees, naive Bayes, support vector machine and multi-layer perceptron. The results demonstrate that the proposed fall detection method outperforms the other methods in terms of providing higher accuracy, precision, sensitivity and specificity values.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".