Subject Cross Validation in Human Activity Recognition

K-fold Cross Validation is commonly used to evaluate classifiers and tune their hyperparameters. However, it assumes that data points are Independent and Identically Distributed (i.i.d.) so that samples used in the training and test sets can be selected randomly and uniformly. In Human Activity Recognition datasets, we note that the samples produced by the same subjects are likely to be correlated due to diverse factors. Hence, k-fold cross validation may overestimate the performance of activity recognizers, in particular when overlapping sliding windows are used. In this paper, we investigate the effect of Subject Cross Validation on the performance of Human Activity Recognition, both with non-overlapping and with overlapping sliding windows. Results show that k-fold cross validation artificially increases the performance of recognizers by about 10%, and even by 16% when overlapping windows are used. In addition, we do not observe any performance gain from the use of overlapping windows. We conclude that Human Activity Recognition systems should be evaluated by Subject Cross Validation, and that overlapping windows are not worth their extra computational cost.

[1]  Sylvain Arlot,et al.  A survey of cross-validation procedures for model selection , 2009, 0907.4728.

[2]  Stephen Coggeshall,et al.  Asset Allocation and Long-Term Returns: An Empirical Approach , 2005 .

[3]  Khalil El-Khatib,et al.  A Comparative Analysis of the Impact of Features on Human Activity Recognition with Smartphone Sensors , 2017, WebMedia.

[4]  Bernt Schiele,et al.  A tutorial on human activity recognition using body-worn inertial sensors , 2014, CSUR.

[5]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[6]  Miguel A. Labrador,et al.  A Survey on Human Activity Recognition using Wearable Sensors , 2013, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[7]  Ashutosh Kumar Singh,et al.  The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction , 2010 .

[8]  Dan Morris,et al.  RecoFit: using a wearable sensor to find, recognize, and count repetitive exercises , 2014, CHI.

[9]  Héctor Pomares,et al.  A benchmark dataset to evaluate sensor displacement in activity recognition , 2012, UbiComp.

[10]  Robert Tibshirani,et al.  The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, 2nd Edition , 2001, Springer Series in Statistics.

[11]  Héctor Pomares,et al.  Window Size Impact in Human Activity Recognition , 2014, Sensors.

[12]  S. Cerutti,et al.  Barometric Pressure and Triaxial Accelerometry-Based Falls Event Detection , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[13]  Kamiar Aminian,et al.  Ambulatory system for human motion analysis using a kinematic sensor: monitoring of daily physical activity in the elderly , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[14]  H.J. Stam,et al.  Automated estimation of initial and terminal contact timing using accelerometers; development and validation in transtibial amputees and controls , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[15]  Shwetak N. Patel,et al.  Implementing technology-based embedded assessment in the home and community life of individuals aging with disabilities: a participatory research and development study , 2014, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.