Investigating the impact of information sharing in human activity recognition
The accuracy of Human Activity Recognition is noticeably affected by the orientation of smartphones during data collection. This study utilized a public domain dataset that was specifically collected to include variations in smartphone positioning. Although the dataset contained records from various...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2022 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC) |
| Repositorio: | UPCommons. Portal del coneixement obert de la UPC |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:upcommons.upc.edu:2117/368054 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/2117/368054 https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s22062280 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Human activity recognition -- Data processing Human activity recognition Machine learning Oversampling Random forest Smartphone Aprenentatge automàtic Àrees temàtiques de la UPC::Informàtica::Intel·ligència artificial::Aprenentatge automàtic |
| Sumario: | The accuracy of Human Activity Recognition is noticeably affected by the orientation of smartphones during data collection. This study utilized a public domain dataset that was specifically collected to include variations in smartphone positioning. Although the dataset contained records from various sensors, only accelerometer data were used in this study; thus, the developed methodology would preserve smartphone battery and incur low computation costs. A total of 175 different features were extracted from the pre-processed data. Data stratification was conducted in three ways to investigate the effect of information sharing between the training and testing datasets. After data balancing using only the training dataset, ten-fold and LOSO cross-validation were performed using several algorithms, including Support Vector Machine, XGBoost, Random Forest, Naïve Bayes, KNN, and Neural Network. A very simple post-processing algorithm was developed to improve the accuracy. The results reveal that XGBoost takes the least computation time while providing high prediction accuracy. Although Neural Network outperforms XGBoost, XGBoost demonstrates better accuracy with post-processing. The final detection accuracy ranges from 99.8% to 77.6% depending on the level of information sharing. This strongly suggests that when reporting accuracy values, the associated information sharing levels should be provided as well in order to allow the results to be interpreted in the correct context. |
|---|