A Comparative Study on Machine Learning Classification Models for Activity Recognition

Activity Recognition (AR) systems are machine learning models developed for cell-phones and smart wearables to recognize various real-time human activities such as walking, standing, running and biking. In this paper, the performance (accuracy and computational time) of several well-known supervised and unsupervised learning models including Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine, K-Nearest Neighbors’, Naive Base, ’Decision Tree’ and Random Forest are examined on a dataset. It is shown that Random Forest model outperforms other models with accuracy over 99 percent. It is shown that PCA significantly improved the performance of Artificial Neural Network with one hidden layer and SVM models in both accuracy and time, while PCA showed to have negative impacts on Random Forest or Decision Tree models by increasing the running time and decreasing the prediction accuracy.

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

[2]  Ryan M. Rifkin,et al.  In Defense of One-Vs-All Classification , 2004, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[3]  Li-Chen Fu,et al.  Robust Location-Aware Activity Recognition Using Wireless Sensor Network in an Attentive Home , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering.

[4]  Kent Larson,et al.  Activity Recognition in the Home Using Simple and Ubiquitous Sensors , 2004, Pervasive.

[5]  Gary M. Weiss,et al.  Activity recognition using cell phone accelerometers , 2011, SKDD.

[6]  Heng Tao Shen,et al.  Principal Component Analysis , 2009, Encyclopedia of Biometrics.

[7]  Michael L. Littman,et al.  Activity Recognition from Accelerometer Data , 2005, AAAI.

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

[9]  Ling Bao,et al.  Activity Recognition from User-Annotated Acceleration Data , 2004, Pervasive.

[10]  K. Kuutti Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research , 1995 .

[11]  Ming Zeng,et al.  Recognizing new activities with limited training data , 2015, SEMWEB.

[12]  Ming Zeng,et al.  I did not smoke 100 cigarettes today!: avoiding false positives in real-world activity recognition , 2015, UbiComp.

[13]  Paul J. M. Havinga,et al.  Activity Recognition Using Inertial Sensing for Healthcare, Wellbeing and Sports Applications: A Survey , 2010, ARCS Workshops.

[14]  Junita Mohamad-Saleh,et al.  Improved Neural Network Performance Using Principal Component Analysis on Matlab , 2008 .

[15]  Daniel P. Siewiorek,et al.  Activity recognition and monitoring using multiple sensors on different body positions , 2006, International Workshop on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks (BSN'06).

[16]  Bernt Schiele,et al.  Exploring semi-supervised and active learning for activity recognition , 2008, 2008 12th IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers.