2022
DOI: 10.1109/tcyb.2021.3137753
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Segmentation Scheme for Knowledge Discovery in Human Activity Spotting

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 67 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For this classifier, only the source user labels are available, while the target user labels are unavailable. Although the target domain label is unknown, it is common to assume that the association between samples and classes is known [34] [35] [36]. For example, we may know a particular sample is associated with class A, but we have no knowledge of what class A is (i.e.…”
Section: Fine-grained Temporal Relation Feature Extractionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For this classifier, only the source user labels are available, while the target user labels are unavailable. Although the target domain label is unknown, it is common to assume that the association between samples and classes is known [34] [35] [36]. For example, we may know a particular sample is associated with class A, but we have no knowledge of what class A is (i.e.…”
Section: Fine-grained Temporal Relation Feature Extractionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As described in the Methodology section we used classification ability to represent knowledge discovery by use of AUROC [34]. There are many opinions on which measures or scores to use when measuring discovered knowledge [29,30,[53][54][55][56][57]. The study mainly used the intrinsic AUROC implementations for each classification method, which could lead to AUROC implementation bias.…”
Section: Knowledge Representationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most scholars first performed a segmentation task on the entire timeseries data into the optimal size for classifying target activities [ 5 ] and then classified each segment. However, this approach has limitations in performance because human activities are not standardized for each person [ 6 ]. In detail, the fixed-size window (FSW) method, shown on the left of Figure 1 , cannot cover properly when the target activity execution time is larger than the window size.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A too-small window size could not include the entire activity, and a too-large window size could be a reason for classification error. In [ 6 ], the window size of SW significantly influenced the recognition performance. In addition, the authors mentioned that the optimal window size is hard to predefine because of the inconstancy of the type and duration of human activity.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%