Multimodal Sensor Fusion Frameworks With Application to Human Action Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Human Action Recognition (HAR) is a progressive research area in the field of computer vision and machine learning. Earlier methods on HAR were based on single sensor modality, either vision-based sensor or wearable inertial sensor. Both of these modalities have some limitations that prevent widespread adoption of HAR; e.g. visual sensors typically require elaborate hardware setup and are limited to a small operating area, where inertial sensors are prone to drift. The solution is to fuse the information from different modalities. In this dissertation, we present novel multimodal sensor fusion frameworks that overcome the limitations of single sensor modality. In these frameworks, we convert all data streams to images through innovative signal to image conversion schemes and feed them to Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), thus enabling extraction of higher-level features that CNNs are proven to be capable of especially from images. Moreover, we propose fast and robust multilevel fusion schemes by extracting features from multiple layers of the CNNs and employing statistical methods such as Canonical Correlation Analysis and gated fusion, instead of the more popular single stage fusion. We applied these fusion frameworks for HAR using depth and inertial sensors. At the input of each fusion framework, we transform depth and inertial sensor data into images called Sequential Front view Images (SFI) and Signal Images (SI). The SFI and SI images are then fused through our proposed multilevel frameworks for more accurate HAR while maintaining computational speed. We evaluate the proposed frameworks on three public multimodal HAR datasets, namely, UTD Multimodal Human Action Dataset (MHAD), Berkeley MHAD, and UTDMHAD Kinect V2 and achieved accuracies of 99.3%, 99.85% and 99.8% respectively.</p> <p>While the proposed frameworks were developed with HAR as a target application area, they can be applied to other fusion problems as well. We show the generalizability of frameworks by applying them to a different domain, where ECG (1D time series) data is converted to multimodal images and fed through our fusion frameworks for arrythmia classification and stress assessment. Preliminary results in these applications are encouraging, further strengthening the significance of the proposed frameworks.</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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".