Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for Competitive Strategies 2016
DOI: 10.1145/2905055.2905232
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Performance Evaluation of Classifiers on WISDM Dataset for Human Activity Recognition

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
20
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the experiment, we perform feature selection with new feature metric and build two-layer ASG models with SVM [18,34], Random Forest [5,11], KNN [12,13], and RNN [24], respectively. e recognition performances of different methods on three datasets are showed as Tables 7-9, respectively.…”
Section: Comparison Of Different Classification Methods In Impersonalmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…In the experiment, we perform feature selection with new feature metric and build two-layer ASG models with SVM [18,34], Random Forest [5,11], KNN [12,13], and RNN [24], respectively. e recognition performances of different methods on three datasets are showed as Tables 7-9, respectively.…”
Section: Comparison Of Different Classification Methods In Impersonalmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hossain et al [4] analyzed different active learning strategies to scale activity recognition and proposed a dynamic k-means clustering to solve the barrier of collecting the ground truth information. Walse et al [5] presented experimental work of various classifiers on the WISDM dataset and the performance of Random Forest was the best.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Thus, if the machine learning model trained with only a few subjects, classifying and differentiating activities for other people may be inaccurate [3]. Previous research also neglects to select the most relevant features to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of the results of the classification [4]. This is due to some of the features might irrelevant and less meaningful to describe the activity.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%