MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W53832915

Activity recognition through goal-based segmentation

2005· article· en· W53832915 on OpenAlexaff
Jie Yin, Dou Shen, Qiang Yang, Ze-Nian Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbabilistic logicComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceHidden Markov modelSegmentationMarket segmentationActivity recognitionMotion (physics)SIGNAL (programming language)Pattern recognition (psychology)Process (computing)Statistical modelMachine learningComputer vision
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major issue in activity recognition in a sensor network is how to automatically segment the low-level signal sequences in order to optimize the probabilistic recognition models for goals and activities. Past efforts have relied on segmenting the signal sequences by hand, which is both time-consuming and error-prone. In our view, segments should correspond to atomic human activities that enable a goal-recognizer to operate optimally; the two are intimately related. In this paper, we present a novel method for building probabilistic activity models at the same time as we segment signal sequences into motion patterns. We model each motion pattern as a linear dynamic model and the transitions between motion patterns as a Markov process conditioned on goals. Our EM learning algorithm simultaneously learns the motion-pattern boundaries and probabilistic models for goals and activities, which in turn can be used to accurately recognize activities in an online phase. A major advantage of our algorithm is that it can reduce the human effort in segmenting and labeling signal sequences. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our algorithm using the data collected in a real wireless environment. Copyright © 2005. American Association for Artificial Intelligence (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

Study designOther design
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

Citations18
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207