Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

LITEWAY: LIghtweight HAR via Temporal Efficient highWAY

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A fully convolutional architecture for wearable HAR matches recurrent models while shrinking model size 4–9.5x and cutting measured energy on a low-power microcontroller.

desk verdict Solid incremental architecture and a wide evaluation, but the energy-savings headline is unsupported by the paper's own deployment table. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09421 v1 pith:RO4VWHWX submitted 2026-08-10 cs.LG cs.AIcs.HC

Dominique Nshimyimana , Vitor Fortes Rey , Mengxi Liu , Bo Zhou , Paul Lukowicz This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.HC
keywords humanactivityrecognitionwearablesensorsfullyconvolutionalnetworkstructuredtemporalmodelingedgeAImodelefficiencytimeseriesclassificationmicrocontrollerdeployment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes LITEWAY, a fully convolutional framework for wearable human activity recognition that replaces recurrent layers with a structured convolutional temporal modeling block. Across 16 datasets it reports macro F1 of 0.808 for the Light variant and 0.813 for the Full variant, slightly above the compared baselines, while cutting model size by a factor of 4.06x–9.52x and energy per inference by up to about 3x on a low-power microcontroller. The claim matters because it suggests that efficient on-device HAR does not require recurrent networks, whose sequential computation limits parallelism on wearable hardware. The paper also reports a Bayesian signed-rank test indicating LITEWAY is at least on par with, and likely better than, the lightweight baselines while being substantially smaller.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the Structured Convolutional Temporal Modeling (SCTM) block, a parameter-efficient module for long-range temporal dependencies that contains no recurrence. SCTM first applies a depthwise temporal convolution followed by a pointwise activation, then a single shared pointwise projection $Z=W_p(H)$. From $Z$ it builds two complementary signals: a collapsed Gated Tanh Unit, $\sigma(Z)\odot\tanh(Z)$, and a highway-style carry gate, $(1-\sigma(Z))\odot W_p(X)$, where $X$ is the block input. The two streams are concatenated rather than added, following the split-transform-merge idea. Sharing one projection across both gating pathways is what keeps parameters low compared with standard gated or recurrent blocks.

What would settle it

Re-measure LITEWAY Light on the same STM32L4S5 board at 120 MHz with the X-NUCLEO-LPM01A power shield, averaging energy over the same 16 inference cycles; if per-inference energy is 32.90 mJ rather than 2.90 mJ, the claimed 2.29x–3.14x energy reduction over TinierHAR and MLP-HAR does not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a fully convolutional architecture with a dedicated structured temporal modeling module can match or slightly exceed the recognition accuracy of recurrent and hybrid HAR models while using far fewer parameters and multiply-accumulate operations. The evidence is a 16-dataset comparison against TinyHAR, TinierHAR, MLP-HAR, and DeepConvLSTM, plus deployment measurements on an STM32L4S5 microcontroller. LITEWAY Light averages 0.808 macro F1 with 6.5K parameters and 988.8K MACs; LITEWAY Full averages 0.813 with 6.7K parameters and 1.8M MACs, placing both in a lower-cost regime than the baselines on the accuracy–efficiency frontier.

Load-bearing premise

The energy and CPU savings are taken from a single deployment measurement on one microcontroller, and the paper reports two conflicting values for the same LITEWAY-L run: 2.90 mJ and 3% CPU in the text versus 32.90 mJ and 30.54% in Table 5.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If LITEWAY's results hold, recurrent layers are not necessary for competitive wearable HAR accuracy; convolution-only temporal modeling suffices.
  • The reported parameter reductions (4.06x–9.52x vs TinyHAR and TinierHAR) would make on-device deployment feasible on microcontrollers with only a few tens of KiB of memory.
  • The energy reductions (2.29x–3.14x for Light, 1.46x–2.01x for Full vs TinierHAR and MLP-HAR) point to longer battery life for continuous sensing, if replicated on other hardware.
  • The method is modality-agnostic, so the same architecture applies to accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, or fused sensor streams without per-sensor redesign.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's own deployment numbers are inconsistent: the text reports 2.90 mJ and 3% CPU for LITEWAY-L while Table 5 lists 32.90 mJ and 30.54%; the energy-reduction factors should be treated as provisional until this is resolved.
  • Because all efficiency numbers come from a single STM32L4S5 board and toolchain, the 2–3x energy advantage may not transfer to other microcontrollers; LITEWAY's cycles/MAC is actually higher than some baselines, so the advantage rests entirely on its low MAC count.
  • The same training protocol without per-dataset tuning is asserted to be fair to all baselines; a testable extension is to sweep key hyperparameters per baseline on a subset of datasets and re-check the accuracy rankings.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. LITEWAY is a fully convolutional, modality-agnostic architecture for wearable human activity recognition (HAR). It substitutes recurrent temporal modeling with a structured convolutional decomposition (SCTM), using depthwise convolutions, shared pointwise projections, gated/highway-inspired pathways, and attention-based temporal pooling. The paper evaluates LITEWAY-Light and LITEWAY-Full on 16 HAR datasets with subject-independent split, five seeds, and compares against TinyHAR, TinierHAR, MLP-HAR, and DeepConvLSTM. The authors report competitive macro-F1 (Light 0.808, Full 0.813 vs baselines 0.801–0.807), large parameter/MAC reductions (up to 9.5× and 146×), and energy reductions from deployment on an STM32L4S5 microcontroller (2.29×–3.14× for Light, 1.46×–2.01× for Full). The paper includes ablations of residual connections, attention pooling, activations, and a Bayesian signed-rank test with a ROPE of one F1 point.

Significance. If the results hold, LITEWAY is a useful contribution to lightweight HAR: the fully convolutional design avoids recurrent states, the parameter counts (6.5–6.7K) and MACs (0.99–1.8M) are remarkably low, and the evaluation spans 16 datasets with a careful subject-independent protocol and five seeds. The paper also provides public code, a detailed ablation study, and hardware measurements, which are strengths that facilitate reproducibility. The architectural ablations (residual placement, attention pooling, heterogeneous activations) give practical design insights. However, the significance is currently tempered by two load-bearing issues: an internal inconsistency in the deployment energy figures and an overstatement of the Bayesian comparison conclusions relative to the paper's own ROPE threshold.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3.5 and Table 5] The deployment section and Table 5 disagree on the LITEWAY-L row. The text states that LITEWAY Light requires "only 37.44 ms per inference, 3% CPU load, and 2.90 mJ per inference," but Table 5 reports CPU load 30.54% and energy 32.90 mJ/Inf for the same model. The headline energy-reduction ratios in the abstract and §1 (2.29×–3.14× for Light, 1.46×–2.01× for Full) depend on these values. If the Table 5 value is correct, the ratios versus TinierHAR and MLP-HAR become 86.36/32.90 = 2.63× and 118.73/32.90 = 3.61×, neither falling within the stated range. Please reconcile the text and table, and recompute all efficiency claims (abstract, §1, §4.3.5, conclusion) with the corrected numbers. Also specify how CPU load is defined, whether energy includes idle/peripheral current, and how many inference cycles were averaged.
  2. [§4.4 Bayesian signed-rank test] The paper adopts a ROPE of one F1 point, then reports that the posterior probability of LITEWAY-F outperforming each baseline ranges from 0.59 to 0.86, and that no comparison crosses the 0.95 decision threshold. Yet the text concludes that the architecture is "at least on par with, and most likely superior to, the SOTA baselines." Under the ROPE framework, a posterior probability of superiority below 0.95 does not justify claiming superiority; the correct conclusion is either practical equivalence (if substantial posterior mass lies inside the ROPE) or indecision. The aggregate differences (0.808–0.813 vs 0.801–0.807) are within the one-F1-point ROPE, so the claim "LITEWAY Full achieves the highest macro F1-score" and the abstract's wording require qualification. Please report the full posterior probabilities (superior, ROPE, inferior) for each baseline and adjust the conclusions and abstract accordingly.
  3. [§4.1 Evaluation Protocol] The paper states that all baselines are evaluated under the same training protocol (AdamW, initial learning rate 1e-3, up to 150 epochs, early stopping patience 15) to ensure a fair comparison, but it does not justify that this protocol is appropriate for each baseline. For example, TinierHAR and TinyHAR may have been originally tuned with different optimizers or schedules; applying a single protocol without per-dataset or per-model tuning can bias the accuracy comparison. Please provide evidence that the protocol is adequate for all models (e.g., report baseline performance under their originally recommended hyperparameters, or show sensitivity to learning rate/early stopping), or clearly state the protocol as a limitation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2.1] The finding text contains a typo: "divers datasets" should be "diverse datasets."
  2. [§4.3.5] The sentence "we deploy them on the low-power STM32L4S5 microcontroller running at 120 MHz)" has an unmatched closing parenthesis; please fix.
  3. [Figure 3 and Table 5] The notation is inconsistent: the text and Table 5 use "MLP-HAR," while Figure 3 uses "MLPHAR." Please standardize.
  4. [Figure 3 caption] The MAC and parameter reduction ratios (1.85×, 2.51×, 4.06×, etc.) do not state which baseline each ratio is relative to. Please clarify in the caption or legend.
  5. [Table 5] The column "Cycles/MAC" is not defined; specify whether it is cycles per multiply-accumulate measured on the STM32, and how it was obtained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

LITEWAY is an empirical architecture paper whose accuracy and efficiency claims are measured, not derived from fitted inputs; only minor non-load-bearing self-citations are present, plus a deployment-table inconsistency that is a reproducibility issue rather than circularity.

full rationale

LITEWAY's claims are self-contained: the architecture (Section 3) is defined by convolutional blocks, SCTM, and attention pooling, and its accuracy (Section 4.2) and efficiency (Section 4.3.5) are obtained by running the model and baselines on 16 datasets and an STM32L4S5 board. No parameter is fitted to the test data and then renamed as a prediction; the macro-F1 numbers are measured outcomes, and the size/MAC/energy reductions are arithmetic ratios of measured parameter counts and deployment readings. The paper does cite prior work by the same group (TinierHAR [9], SPECTRA [15], TSAK [6]), but these enter only as baselines or related work; none supplies a premise that forces LITEWAY's architecture or its measured advantage. The SCTM module explicitly reuses highway/gated-tanh/depthwise-separable design elements with external citations, and the authors acknowledge this rather than presenting it as a new derivation. There is no uniqueness theorem or ansatz smuggled in via citation. A separate, non-circular weakness exists in Section 4.3.5/Table 5: the text states LITEWAY Light requires '3% CPU load, and 2.90 mJ per inference,' while Table 5 reports 30.54% CPU and 32.90 mJ/Inf for the same row; this internal inconsistency undermines the reproducibility of the energy-savings headline but is not a case of a claim reducing to its input. The stated limitation 'LITEWAY was evaluated on a single microcontroller' (Section 4.4) is also a generality concern, not circularity. Overall, no derivation step reduces by construction to its own inputs; score 2 reflects only the presence of minor self-citations that are not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The architecture introduces no new physical entities or fitted scientific constants. The free parameters listed are hand-chosen architectural hyperparameters (widths, kernel size, depth, downsampling factor). The axioms are domain assumptions about evaluation methodology and hardware representativeness.

free parameters (5)
  • Feature width multiplier F = 4
    Architecture width for all convolutional blocks, chosen by hand (Figure 1 caption), affects parameter count and capacity.
  • Latent width F* = 32
    Channel count in SCTM and classification head, chosen by hand (Figure 1 caption).
  • Temporal convolution kernel size = 5
    Kernel size for all temporal convolutions in SCTM and backbone (Figure 1), chosen by hand; not swept.
  • Temporal downsampling schedule = T to T/4 through two stages
    Temporal downsampling factor, chosen by hand, determines receptive field and MACs.
  • Number of feature refinement blocks = 4
    Depth of the refinement stage, chosen by hand (Section 3.1).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Subject-independent evaluation on 16 public datasets is representative of real-world HAR generalization.
    The paper uses LOSO and subject-hold-out protocols and treats these as a general benchmark, but no external validation beyond these datasets is provided.
  • domain assumption MACs and parameter count translate directly to latency and energy on target hardware.
    The paper argues for efficiency from MACs and parameters, then confirms on one MCU. The translation is not universal across different hardware and software stacks.
  • domain assumption The STM32L4S5 microcontroller is representative of wearable edge devices.
    Only one microcontroller is used for deployment, and the paper itself lists this as a limitation in Section 4.4.
  • domain assumption The Bayesian signed-rank test with ROPE of one F1 point is an appropriate basis for the 'at least on par' conclusion.
    The ROPE width is chosen by the authors and directly determines whether differences are considered meaningful.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LITEWAY: LIghtweight HAR via Temporal Efficient highWAY." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RO4VWHWX

@misc{pith2026260809421,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LITEWAY: LIghtweight HAR via Temporal Efficient highWAY},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RO4VWHWX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09421}
}
read the original abstract

Wearable human activity recognition (HAR) remains challenging due to the computational and energy constraints of deep learning models on resource-limited devices. Existing lightweight approaches often rely on recurrent architectures (e.g., GRU and LSTM), limiting parallelism and increasing inference latency. We propose LITEWAY, a modality-agnostic, fully convolutional framework for multichannel sensor time series that replaces recurrent temporal modeling with structured convolutional decomposition. LITEWAY combines lightweight convolutional blocks, strided temporal processing, and convolution-attention pooling to efficiently capture temporal dependencies while reducing computational complexity. We evaluate LITEWAY on 16 HAR datasets against TinyHAR, TinierHAR, and MLP-HAR. LITEWAY achieves competitive macro F1 while reducing model size by 4.06x-9.52x (Light) and 3.87x-9.07x (Full) compared with TinyHAR and TinierHAR. Deployment experiments further show energy reductions of 2.29x-3.14x (Light) and 1.46x-2.01x (Full) compared with TinierHAR and MLP-HAR, highlighting efficient fully convolutional temporal modeling for wearable HAR. The source code is publicly available at https://github.com/dominique-nshimyimana/liteway.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09421 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. LITEWAY architectures (Full and Light), based on a fully convolutional design with a single linear classification layer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Performance of LITEWAYs in terms of (1) macro F1 score, (2) MACs, and (3) number of parameters, compared with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of macro F1, MACs, and parameters. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kerem Altun, Billur Barshan, and Orkun Tunçel. 2010. Comparative study on classifying human activities with miniature inertial and magnetic sensors.Pattern Recognition43, 10 (2010), 3605–3620

    2010

  2. [2]

    Anguita, Alessandro Ghio, L

    D. Anguita, Alessandro Ghio, L. Oneto, Xavier Parra, and Jorge Luis Reyes- Ortiz. 2013. A Public Domain Dataset for Human Activity Recognition using Smartphones. InThe European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks. https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:6975432

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Marc Bachlin, Daniel Roggen, Gerhard Troster, Meir Plotnik, Noit Inbar, Inbal Meidan, Talia Herman, Marina Brozgol, Eliya Shaviv, Nir Giladi, et al . 2009. Potentials of enhanced context awareness in wearable assistants for Parkin- son’s disease patients with the freezing of gait syndrome. In2009 International Symposium on Wearable Computers. IEEE, 123–130

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Shaojie Bai, J Zico Kolter, and Vladlen Koltun. 2018. An empirical evaluation of generic convolutional and recurrent networks for sequence modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.01271(2018)

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Oresti Banos, Rafael Garcia, Juan A Holgado-Terriza, Miguel Damas, Hector Pomares, Ignacio Rojas, Alejandro Saez, and Claudia Villalonga. 2014. mHealth- Droid: a novel framework for agile development of mobile health applications. InInternational workshop on ambient assisted living. Springer, 91–98

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Hymalai Bello, Daniel Geißler, Sungho Suh, Bo Zhou, and Paul Lukowicz. 2024. TSAK: Two-Stage Semantic-Aware Knowledge Distillation for Efficient Wear- able Modality and Model Optimization in Manufacturing Lines.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.14146(2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Alessio Benavoli, Giorgio Corani, Janez Demšar, and Marco Zaffalon. 2017. Time for a Change: a Tutorial for Comparing Multiple Classifiers Through Bayesian Analysis.Journal of Machine Learning Research18, 77 (2017), 1–36

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Alessio Benavoli, Giorgio Corani, Francesca Mangili, Marco Zaffalon, and Fab- rizio Ruggeri. 2014. A Bayesian Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test Based on the Dirich- let Process. InProceedings of the 31st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML). 1026–1034

    work page 2014

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Sizhen Bian, Mengxi Liu, Vitor Fortes Rey, Daniel Geissler, and Paul Lukowicz

  2. [10]

    Sizhen Bian, Vitor Fortes Rey, Siyu Yuan, and Paul Lukowicz. 2022. The con- tribution of human body capacitance/body-area electric field to individual and collaborative activity recognition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.14794(2022)

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Valentina Bianchi, Marco Bassoli, Gianfranco Lombardo, Paolo Fornacciari, Mon- ica Mordonini, and Ilaria De Munari. 2019. IoT wearable sensor and deep learning: An integrated approach for personalized human activity recognition in a smart home environment.IEEE Internet of Thin...

    2019

  4. [12]

    Marius Bock, Hilde Kuehne, Kristof Van Laerhoven, and Michael Moeller. 2023. Wear: An outdoor sports dataset for wearable and egocentric activity recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05088(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Junyoung Chung, Caglar Gulcehre, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Empirical Evaluation of Gated Recurrent Neural Networks on Sequence Modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.3555(2014)

    2014 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Yann N Dauphin, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and David Grangier. 2017. Lan- guage Modeling with Gated Convolutional Networks. InProceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 933–941

    2017

  7. [15]

    Deepika Gurung, Lala Shakti Swarup Ray, Mengxi Liu, Bo Zhou, and Paul Lukow- icz. 2026. SPECTRA: An Efficient Spectral-Informed Neural Network for Sensor- Based Activity Recognition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.26482(2026)

    2026

  8. [16]

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 770–778

    2016

  9. [17]

    Andrew G Howard, Menglong Zhu, Bo Chen, Dmitry Kalenichenko, Weijun Wang, Tobias Weyand, Marco Andreetto, and Hartwig Adam. 2017. Mobilenets: Efficient convolutional neural networks for mobile vision applications.arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04861(2017)

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Jie Hu, Li Shen, and Gang Sun. 2018. Squeeze-and-excitation networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 7132–7141

    2018

  11. [19]

    Ji Lin, Wei-Ming Chen, Yujun Lin, Chuang Gan, Song Han, et al. 2020. Mcunet: Tiny deep learning on iot devices.Advances in neural information processing systems33 (2020), 11711–11722

    2020

  12. [20]

    Mohammad Malekzadeh, Richard G Clegg, Andrea Cavallaro, and Hamed Had- dadi. 2019. Mobile sensor data anonymization. InProceedings of the international conference on internet of things design and implementation. 49–58

    2019

  13. [21]

    Aimé Cedric Muhoza, Emmanuel Bergeret, Corinne Brdys, and Francis Gary. 2023. Power consumption reduction for IoT devices thanks to Edge-AI: Application to human activity recognition.Internet of Things24 (2023), 100930

    2023

  14. [22]

    Francisco Javier Ordóñez and Daniel Roggen. 2016. Deep convolutional and lstm recurrent neural networks for multimodal wearable activity recognition.Sensors 16, 1 (2016), 115

    2016

  15. [23]

    Attila Reiss and Didier Stricker. 2012. Introducing a new benchmarked dataset for activity monitoring. In2012 16th international symposium on wearable computers. IEEE, 108–109

    2012

  16. [24]

    Jorge-L Reyes-Ortiz, Luca Oneto, Albert Samà, Xavier Parra, and Davide An- guita. 2016. Transition-aware human activity recognition using smartphones. Neurocomputing171 (2016), 754–767

    2016

  17. [25]

    Daniel Roggen, Alberto Calatroni, Mirco Rossi, Thomas Holleczek, Kilian Förster, Gerhard Tröster, Paul Lukowicz, David Bannach, Gerald Pirkl, Alois Ferscha, et al. 2010. Collecting complex activity datasets in highly rich networked sensor environments. In2010 Seventh internati...

    2010

  18. [26]

    Mutegeki Ronald, Alwin Poulose, and Dong Seog Han. 2021. iSPLInception: an inception-ResNet deep learning architecture for human activity recognition. IEEE Access9 (2021), 68985–69001

    2021

  19. [27]

    Abhijit Guha Roy, Nassir Navab, and Christian Wachinger. 2018. Concurrent spatial and channel ‘squeeze & excitation’in fully convolutional networks. In International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted inter- vention. Springer, 421–429

    2018

  20. [28]

    Muhammad Shoaib, Stephan Bosch, Ozlem Durmaz Incel, Hans Scholten, and Paul JM Havinga. 2014. Fusion of smartphone motion sensors for physical activity recognition.Sensors14, 6 (2014), 10146–10176. https://doi.org/10.3390/ s140610146

    2014

  21. [29]

    Davinder Pal Singh, Lala Shakti Swarup Ray, Bo Zhou, Sungho Suh, and Paul Lukowicz. 2024. A Novel Local-Global Feature Fusion Framework for Body- Weight Exercise Recognition with Pressure Mapping Sensors. InICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech an...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Rupesh Kumar Srivastava, Klaus Greff, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2015. Training Very Deep Networks. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 28

    2015

  23. [31]

    Sungho Suh, Vitor Fortes Rey, Sizhen Bian, Yu-Chi Huang, Jože M Rožanec, Hooman Tavakoli Ghinani, Bo Zhou, and Paul Lukowicz. 2023. Worker Activity Recognition in Manufacturing Line Using Near-body Electric Field.IEEE Internet of Things Journal(2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Christian Szegedy, Wei Liu, Yangqing Jia, Pierre Sermanet, Scott Reed, Dragomir Anguelov, Dumitru Erhan, Vincent Vanhoucke, and Andrew Rabinovich. 2015. Going deeper with convolutions. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 1–9

    2015

  25. [33]

    Timo Sztyler, Heiner Stuckenschmidt, and Wolfgang Petrich. 2017. Position- aware activity recognition with wearable devices.Pervasive and mobile computing 38 (2017), 281–295

    2017

  26. [34]

    Wenjin Tao, Ze-Hao Lai, Ming C Leu, and Zhaozheng Yin. 2018. Worker ac- tivity recognition in smart manufacturing using IMU and sEMG signals with convolutional neural networks.Procedia Manufacturing26 (2018), 1159–1166

    2018

  27. [35]

    Aaron Van Den Oord, Sander Dieleman, Heiga Zen, Karen Simonyan, Oriol Vinyals, Alex Graves, Nal Kalchbrenner, Andrew Senior, Koray Kavukcuoglu, et al

  28. [36]

    Aäron van den Oord, Nal Kalchbrenner, Lasse Espeholt, Oriol Vinyals, Alex Graves, and Koray Kavukcuoglu. 2016. Conditional Image Generation with Pix- elCNN Decoders. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 29

    2016

  29. [37]

    Cheng Xu, Jie He, Xiaotong Zhang, Cui Yao, and Po-Hsuan Tseng. 2018. Geo- metrical kinematic modeling on human motion using method of multi-sensor fusion.Information Fusion41 (2018), 243–254

    2018

  30. [38]

    Piero Zappi, Clemens Lombriser, Thomas Stiefmeier, Elisabetta Farella, Daniel Roggen, Luca Benini, and Gerhard Tröster. 2008. Activity recognition from on- body sensors: accuracy-power trade-off by dynamic sensor selection. InEuropean Conference on Wireless Sensor Networks. Sp...

    2008

  31. [39]

    Mi Zhang and Alexander A Sawchuk. 2012. USC-HAD: A daily activity dataset for ubiquitous activity recognition using wearable sensors. InProceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on ubiquitous computing. 1036–1043

    2012

  32. [40]

    Xiaolong Zheng, Jiliang Wang, Longfei Shangguan, Zimu Zhou, and Yunhao Liu

  33. [41]

    Bo Zhou, Sungho Suh, Vitor Fortes Rey, Carlos Andres Velez Altamirano, and Paul Lukowicz. 2022. Quali-mat: Evaluating the quality of execution in body- weight exercises with a pressure sensitive sports mat.Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous ...

    2022

  34. [42]

    Yexu Zhou, Tobias King, Haibin Zhao, Yiran Huang, Till Riedel, and Michael Beigl. 2024. Mlp-har: Boosting performance and efficiency of har models on edge devices with purely fully connected layers. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers. 133–139

    2024

  35. [43]

    Yexu Zhou, Haibin Zhao, Yiran Huang, Till Riedel, Michael Hefenbrock, and Michael Beigl. 2022. Tinyhar: A lightweight deep learning model designed for human activity recognition. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers. 89–93

    2022

  36. [2016]

    Wavenet: A generative model for raw audio.arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.03499 12, 1 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  37. [2017]

    Design and implementation of a CSI-based ubiquitous smoking detection system.IEEE/ACM transactions on networking25, 6 (2017), 3781–3793

    2017

  38. [2025]

    InProceedings of the 2025 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers

    TinierHAR: Towards Ultra-Lightweight Deep Learning Models for Efficient Human Activity Recognition on Edge Devices. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers. 163–169

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.