MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408100126 · doi:10.1109/jiot.2025.3547405

Continuous Human Activity Recognition in IoT Environments With BAOA and AFSG-TPD GANs

2025· article· en· W4408100126 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Yin, Ling‐Feng Shi, Yifan Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Internet of Things Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInternet of ThingsActivity recognitionEmbedded systemArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a method for recognizing continuous indoor daily human activities among continuous indoor Internet of Things (IoT) smart environments using millimeter wave radar. Focusing on the following problems: 1) transition errors due to random transitions between actions during continuous action recognition and 2) the time-consuming and labor-intensive factors on radar data acquisition for continuous human actions make it difficult to consider all action sequences, and the network suffers from catastrophic degradation of the recognition performance when faced with completely new human action sequences. A bounding adaptive optimization algorithm based on interlacing error (BAOA) and a generative adversarial network based on adaptive feature selection generator and temporal patch discriminator (AFSG-TPD GAN) are proposed. BAOA is used to accurately segment the existing action sequences to obtain a single action dataset of random duration, synthesize the data used to train the AFSG-TPD GAN, generate new action sequences, and train the recognition network to improve generalization performance. After the comparison test, BAOA increases the average accuracy by 3.91% compared to the state-of-the-art (SOTA) method. Meanwhile, the network trained with the data generated by the AFSG-TPD GAN overcomes the problem of catastrophic degradation of the recognition performance when confronted with brand new human action sequences in real-world tests, and the average accuracy is improved from 65.01% to 94.85%.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Internet of Things JournalSame topicContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207