Quantitative Analysis of Mother Wavelet Function Selection for Wearable Sensors-Based Human Activity Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advancements in the Internet of Things (IoT) wearable devices such as wearable inertial sensors have increased the demand for precise human activity recognition (HAR) with minimal computational resources. The wavelet transform, which offers excellent time-frequency localization characteristics, is well suited for HAR recognition systems. Selecting a mother wavelet function in wavelet analysis is critical, as optimal selection improves the recognition performance. The activity time signals data have different periodic patterns that can discriminate activities from each other. Therefore, selecting a mother wavelet function that closely resembles the shape of the recognized activity's sensor (inertial) signals significantly impacts recognition performance. This study uses an optimal mother wavelet selection method that combines wavelet packet transform with the energy-to-Shannon-entropy ratio and two classification algorithms: decision tree (DT) and support vector machines (SVM). We examined six different mother wavelet families with different numbers of vanishing points. Our experiments were performed on eight publicly available ADL datasets: MHEALTH, WISDM Activity Prediction, HARTH, HARsense, DaLiAc, PAMAP2, REALDISP, and HAR70+. The analysis demonstrated in this paper can be used as a guideline for optimal mother wavelet selection for human activity recognition.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".