In Shift and In Variance: Assessing the Robustness of HAR Deep Learning Models Against Variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep learning (DL)-based Human Activity Recognition (HAR) using wearable inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors can revolutionize continuous health monitoring and early disease prediction. However, most DL HAR models are untested in their robustness to real-world variability, as they are trained on limited lab-controlled data. In this study, we isolated and analyzed the effects of the subject, device, position, and orientation variabilities on DL HAR models using the HARVAR and REALDISP datasets. The Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) was used to quantify shifts in the data distribution caused by these variabilities, and the relationship between the distribution shifts and model performance was drawn. Our HARVAR results show that different types of variability significantly degraded the DL model performance, with an inverse relationship between the data distribution shifts and performance. The compounding effect of multiple variabilities studied using REALDISP further underscores the challenges of generalizing DL HAR models to real-world conditions. Analyzing these impacts highlights the need for more robust models that generalize effectively to real-world settings. The MMD proved valuable for explaining the performance drops, emphasizing its utility in evaluating distribution shifts in HAR data.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".