MORIC: CSI Delay-Doppler Decomposition for Robust Wi-Fi-based Human Activity Recognition

Navid Hasanzadeh; Shahrokh Valaee

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

MORIC: CSI Delay-Doppler Decomposition for Robust Wi-Fi-based Human Activity Recognition

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Multipath echoes as motion cameras: Wi-Fi gesture recognition hits 56.3% cross-user accuracy

desk verdict A useful method with a shaky physical story: the delay–Doppler decomposition is empirically strong, but the delay-resolution premise needs validation before the “per-path virtual camera” interpretation is taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12997 v4 pith:VUAWEBWL submitted 2025-06-15 eess.SP

Navid Hasanzadeh , Shahrokh Valaee This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SP

keywords Wi-FisensinghumanactivityrecognitionchannelstateinformationDopplervelocitydelay-Dopplerdecompositionmultipathorder-invariantclassificationcross-usergeneralization

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

Wi-Fi-based human activity recognition works in controlled settings but degrades sharply when the user, room, or hardware changes, because methods lean on environment-specific magnitude and phase patterns. This paper argues that the right representation is motion itself: it decomposes CSI into delay bins and, in each bin, reads a Doppler velocity that is the projection of the user's 3-D velocity onto an unknown direction set by that multipath path. Because those paths arrive in random order and repeat unpredictably, the paper introduces MORIC, a classifier built from random convolutional kernels and max-pooling across delay bins, which is invariant to order and repetition. On a new four-gesture hand-motion dataset, MORIC reaches 56.3% average cross-user accuracy with all access points, versus 36.1% for the best baseline, and a few calibration samples per class push accuracy above 98% with a single access point. A sympathetic reader would take the paper to be establishing that per-path Doppler projections, rather than aggregated Doppler or raw CSI, are the route to generalizable Wi-Fi sensing.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the delay-Doppler decomposition: an N-point IDFT over CSI subcarriers separates the channel into N resolvable delay bins, each carrying a sinc-weighted multipath component $h(s;\tau_i)$. Doppler velocity per bin is estimated not by differentiating phase but by locating the peak of the power spectral density, which Lemma 3 (von Mises–Fisher concentration with $\kappa\gg1$) identifies as $f^* = v(s)\cdot m_i/\lambda$. The classification engine is MORIC: random 1-D convolutional kernels turn each velocity time series into a feature vector, K shared MLP heads reduce each vector, and max-pooling across delay bins yields a single representation invariant to the order and repetition of the projections.

What would settle it

Place a Wi-Fi transmitter and receiver with one reflector moving at a known constant velocity, and measure the per-delay Doppler PSD in two rooms: one with a single dominant reflector cluster and one with deliberately diffuse scattering. If the PSD peak is not at $v(s)\cdot m_i/\lambda$, or is multi-modal, in the diffuse room, the projection identity on which the representation rests fails under realistic conditions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that each resolvable multipath delay bin carries a distinct, physically meaningful Doppler velocity projection of the same 3-D motion. After an IDFT over subcarriers, the channel at delay $\tau_i$ is modeled as a superposition of scatterers whose directions follow a von Mises–Fisher distribution, and for a sharply concentrated distribution ($\kappa\gg1$) both the phase derivative and the PSD peak reduce to $v_r(s;\tau_i)=v(s)\cdot m_i$, the projection of the velocity vector onto the mean arrival direction of that path; equations (38) and (43) state this identity. Since the directions $m_i$ are random and unordered, the set of projections is treated as a bag, and MORIC's shared MLP heads and max-pooling over delay bins make the classifier invariant to which view comes first or repeats. The claim is supported by leave-one-subject-out experiments on the UTHAMO dataset, where this representation outperforms magnitude-, phase-, and aggregated-Doppler baselines.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the scatterers contributing to each delay bin arrive from a tightly clustered direction, so the Doppler power spectrum has a single peak at $v(s)\cdot m_i/\lambda$; if reflections arrive from many directions at once, that peak is not a clean velocity projection.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

With all five access points, MORIC reaches $56.3\%\pm 9.1\%$ four-class cross-user accuracy against $36.1\%\pm 5.1\%$ for the strongest baseline (the CSI ratio model) at orientation $180^\circ$ of the UTHAMO dataset.
A single access point where the user blocks the line of sight (SAP 5) already gives $51.5\%$ cross-user accuracy, showing that multi-AP fusion is helpful but not required.
Calibration with 4, 6, or 10 samples per gesture class raises single-AP accuracy to $88.5\%$, $92.5\%$, and $98.8\%$, respectively, making few-shot on-device adaptation plausible.
Removing the max-pooling stage drops accuracy from $56.3\%$ to $42.5\%$, confirming that order and repetition invariance is load-bearing for the method.
Binary experiments show the representation separates up–down from circle at $91.7\%$ and push–pull from up–down at $89.2\%$, while push–pull versus left–right remains the hardest pair.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, one can test the geometric story directly: move a single reflector at a known velocity in rooms with one dominant reflector cluster versus deliberately diffuse scattering, and check whether the per-delay PSD peak stays single-peaked and lands at $v(s)\cdot m_i/\lambda$.
Beyond the paper, since max-pooling discards which delay bin produced which projection, an experiment that sorts or clusters the projections before pooling would reveal whether the bag assumption is correct or whether bin identity carries useful information.
Beyond the paper, the virtual-camera analogy implies a geometry-dependent ceiling: access points that view the motion from similar directions should add little information, so adding elevation diversity to AP placement should sharpen the confusable push–pull versus left–right pair.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Here is my read. The paper's substance: it builds a delay-profile representation of Wi-Fi CSI, estimates per-delay-bin Doppler velocity via PSD peaks, and feeds the unordered set of projections through a ROCKET-based order/repetition-invariant classifier (MORIC). That combination is new, the dataset is public, and the cross-user four-class result (56.3% vs 36.1% for the best baseline) is a real improvement, even if absolute accuracy is modest. The ablation study is honest and useful: phase compensation, max pooling, PSD estimation, and the classifier all contribute. I believe the empirical claim, as far as it goes.

The math is mostly standard (IDFT, Dirichlet kernel, von Mises–Fisher asymptotics) and not circular. But the stress-test concern is on target: with 20 MHz bandwidth, delay resolution is c/BW ≈ 15 m, comparable to the room size. So most physical paths fall in the same few delay bins, and the high-index bins in Fig. 6 (17, 35, 47) cannot correspond to physically plausible excess path lengths in a 6 m × 5.6 m room; they are leakage or noise. Eq. (38) and (43) present each bin's PSD peak as v(s)·m_i, which requires the bin to be dominated by a single direction with sharply concentrated angular spread. The paper itself acknowledges bins may contain unresolved paths and then proceeds as if each bin had a well-defined mean direction. It never reports delay spread or a per-bin SNR audit, and κ is never estimated. So the “virtual cameras” interpretation is not supported as stated. The method might still work as a learned feature over a fixed filter bank; the physical narrative needs to be backed by data or softened.

That said, the flaw is in the interpretation, not in the evaluation. The experiments are reasonably careful: LOSO cross-validation, multiple APs and orientations, confusion matrices, ablations, and a public dataset. The main empirical soft spots are one environment, six subjects, and no comparison to a strong cross-domain baseline such as Widar3.0; the reader flagged that, and I agree. The calibration results are striking but amount to few-shot adaptation rather than pure zero-shot generalization; the paper should be clearer about that.

Who this is for: people working in Wi-Fi sensing and HAR will want to read it. It deserves a serious referee. I recommend sending it to peer review with a request for delay-spread evidence and κ justification, plus an additional baseline. A motivated revision can fix the gap between the math and the measured channel.

Recommendation: accept for review, do not desk reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MORIC, a Wi-Fi CSI-based human activity recognition pipeline. It sanitizes CSI phase, applies an IDFT across subcarriers to obtain a delay profile, and estimates a Doppler velocity per delay bin from the peak of the bin's power spectral density. These per-bin velocities are treated as unordered, possibly repeated projections of the user's 3-D velocity onto unknown multipath directions ('virtual cameras'). A classifier based on random convolutional kernels, per-bin MLPs, and max-pooling is designed to be invariant to ordering and repetition. The theoretical part derives Eq. (38)/(43), connecting per-bin Doppler velocity to v(s)·m_i under a von Mises-Fisher concentration assumption. Experiments on a new six-user hand-gesture dataset (UTHAMO) report leave-one-subject-out accuracies of 56.3% for four classes with all APs versus 36.1% for the best baseline, and 98.8% with ten calibration samples per class.

Significance. If the physical interpretation holds, the delay-Doppler decomposition is an elegant way to turn multipath from a nuisance into multiple observation angles, and MORIC's permutation-invariant architecture is a sensible response to the unordered nature of the representation. The paper contributes a public dataset, explicit derivations, and an extensive comparison against several baselines. However, the central interpretation rests on delay resolvability and angular concentration assumptions that are not validated in the measured environment; the empirical gains may survive a weakened interpretation, but the motivating physical claim does not yet have adequate support.

major comments (3)

[III-C, Eqs. (27)-(31), Fig. 6] The decomposition into 'multipath components' indexed by delay bin requires that physical paths be resolvable, i.e., |τ_i - τ_j| > 1/BW, as the manuscript itself states near Eq. (31). The paper never specifies the UTHAMO bandwidth; the 52 data subcarriers on a 2.4-GHz 802.11ac link imply the 20-MHz mode, for which Δτ_min = 50 ns and Δd_min = c/BW ≈ 15 m. In the 6 m × 5.6 m room, most physical paths differ by far less than 15 m and therefore fall into the same delay bin, so h(s; τ_i) in Eq. (30) is a mixture of unresolved paths with different directions and Doppler shifts, not a single path with a well-defined mean direction m_i. The high-index bins shown in Fig. 6 (17, 35, 47) correspond to delays of 850 ns, 1.75 μs, and 2.35 μs, i.e., excess path lengths of 255 m, 525 m, and 705 m, which cannot exist in this room and must be sinc sidelobes or noise. Because Section III-G normalizes every retained bin to unit variance, these non-physical bins enter the classifier as pseudo-velocity features. The central representation V_r(s) is therefore unsupported unless the authors provide a measured power-delay profile and a per-bin SNR audit showing which bins contain real paths, or they reduce the physical claim to an empirical feature construction.
[III-D, Lemma 3, Eqs. (36) and (43)] The derivation of the projected velocity identity relies on Lemma 3, which requires κ ≫ 1 for the von Mises-Fisher distribution p_i_Ω. No estimate of κ is provided for the measured environment, and indoor sub-7 GHz scattering in a small furnished office is plausibly diffuse or multimodal rather than sharply concentrated. If κ is moderate or the directional distribution has multiple modes, the ratio in Eq. (34) is a weighted average over different directions, not v(s)·m_i, and the PSD peak in Eq. (43) does not correspond to a single mean direction. This is not an external disagreement but an unvalidated assumption inside the derivation. A concrete test would be to estimate κ (or the angular spread) per delay bin from the UTHAMO measurements, or to evaluate Eq. (34) and the PSD peak location for κ in the range 1-20 and show that the velocity-projection interpretation remains accurate.
[III-E, Eqs. (41)-(43)] Equation (41) gives S(f; τ_i) = E_{r∼p_i_Ω}[|β_i(r)|^2 δ(f − v(s)·r/λ)]. The text then claims that the PSD peak occurs at f = v(s)·m_i/λ. This inference is not justified by Lemma 3, which is a statement about the mean of a smooth function on the sphere, whereas here the integrand contains a Dirac delta and the quantity of interest is the mode of an expectation. If |β_i(r)|^2 varies over the support of p_i_Ω, the argmax of S(f; τ_i) is biased relative to v(s)·m_i/λ; Lemma 3 applied naively would give the mean Doppler, not the peak Doppler. The paper should either state and justify the additional condition that |β_i(r)|^2 is slowly varying over the concentration support, or quantify the resulting velocity bias.

minor comments (6)

[IV-A] State the Wi-Fi bandwidth (20 vs 40 MHz) and subcarrier spacing explicitly; all delay-bin interpretations depend on this value.
[III-D, Eqs. (37)-(38)] The symbol v_r(s; τ_i) is used both for the estimated phase derivative and for the true projection v(s)·m_i; use separate notation (e.g., a hat) until the approximation is invoked.
[After Eq. (41)] The statement that the PSD 'behaves as a probability density function on the Doppler frequency f' is imprecise, because S(f; τ_i) is an unnormalized weighted expectation that depends on |β_i(r)|^2.
[Fig. 7 caption; Figs. 10-13 captions] The Fig. 7 caption contains a typo ('peojections'), and the captions of Figs. 10-13 contain OCR artifacts ('/uni...') that must be cleaned in the published version.
[Table I] The '–' entry for APNSS + APSC under All APs is unexplained; state that this baseline does not support multi-AP fusion.
[Eq. (45)] Clarify whether the SNR threshold is 2 dB or a linear SNR of 2; the notation SNRdB with 'less than or equal to 2' is ambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the delay-Doppler velocity derivation is self-contained and the empirical results are not forced by a fitted input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Section III-B builds the geometric path-length model (Lemmas 1 and 2), Section III-C performs the IDFT delay decomposition (Eqs. 26-30) and acknowledges the sinc resolution limit, Section III-D derives the phase-derivative velocity relation (Eqs. 33-38) using Lemma 3, a standard von Mises-Fisher concentration approximation attributed to externally published work [25, 29], and Section III-E obtains the PSD-peak estimator (Eqs. 39-43) from a Wiener-Khinchin argument. None of these steps fits a parameter to data and then reports that parameter as a prediction; the only fitted components are the random convolution kernels and MLP of MORIC, trained with leave-one-subject-out cross-validation, and the Platt-scaling calibration on explicitly held-out samples, both of which are standard and disclosed. The self-citations ([24] for phase compensation and [31], [36] as baselines) are not load-bearing for the central claim: the phase compensation is fully described in Eqs. (6)-(9), and the baselines are only comparison methods. The reviewer concern that the 20-MHz UTHAMO bandwidth gives c/BW about 15 m resolution, so the 52 delay bins are not necessarily resolved individual paths, or that the kappa >> 1 assumption may fail, is a physical-validity and correctness objection to the interpretation of Eqs. (38)/(43) under the experimental configuration, not a circularity: the theoretical equations are derived from stated assumptions rather than assumed into existence, and the reported accuracy does not reduce to a self-citation or a fitted input. Therefore no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on a small number of domain assumptions about scattering geometry and concentration; the model hyperparameters and the SNR threshold are hand-set but do not enter the derived physical relation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

SNR threshold = 2 dB
Components with SNR≤2 dB are zeroed in Section G; this threshold is chosen by hand and affects the final accuracy (ablation shows removing post-processing drops accuracy to 51.4%).
PSD estimation window parameters = not specified
The paper mentions a Welch window but does not specify its length or overlap; the velocity estimates depend on these choices, so they are implicit tuning parameters.
MORIC hyperparameters = K=2, D=1000, hidden=256, D'=128, lr=1e-4, batch=64, epochs up to 2500
These are standard model hyperparameters set by the authors; they affect classification performance but are not fitted to the central physical relation.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The angular distribution of scatterers in each delay bin is a von Mises-Fisher distribution with concentration κ≫1, so that ∫ f(r)p_Ω(r)dr ≈ f(m) (Lemma 3).
This is the load-bearing premise for Eqs. (36) and (43), which identify the Doppler velocity projection with the value at the mean arrival direction. It is not validated on the measured channel.
domain assumption The channel at each delay bin can be modeled as a continuum of sub-rays with a smooth gain β_i(r) over S^2 (Eq. 21).
Real channels have discrete paths; the smooth-continuum model is an idealization that underpins the PSD derivation.
domain assumption The small-displacement approximation ∥v∥t ≪ d_O holds for indoor motion (Lemma 1).
The paper justifies this with typical indoor distances (3-5 m) and speeds (≤1.5 m/s over ≤0.2 s), giving ∥v∥t ≤0.3 m. This is reasonable but still an approximation.
domain assumption β_i(r) is time-invariant within the Welch window used for PSD estimation.
Stated before Eq. (43); if the scattering gain changes rapidly, the PSD peak may not correspond to a clean velocity projection.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MORIC: CSI Delay-Doppler Decomposition for Robust Wi-Fi-based Human Activity Recognition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VUAWEBWL

@misc{pith2026250612997,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MORIC: CSI Delay-Doppler Decomposition for Robust Wi-Fi-based Human Activity Recognition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VUAWEBWL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12997}
}

read the original abstract

The newly established IEEE 802.11bf Task Group aims to amend the WLAN standard to support advanced sensing applications such as human activity recognition (HAR). Although studies have demonstrated the potential of sub-7 GHz Wi-Fi Channel State Information (CSI) for HAR, existing methods often degrade substantially under realistic variations across users, environments, and sensing configurations. This work addresses the poor generalization of Wi-Fi-based HAR by extracting motion-centered representations that reduce dependence on static, environment-specific, and non-activity-related CSI magnitude and phase patterns. CSI signals are transformed into the delay-profile space and decomposed into multiple Doppler velocity projections, which are modeled as observations of a moving point's velocity from different unknown directions, analogous to virtual cameras observing the same motion with varying degrees of clarity. This yields a richer activity representation than either a single aggregated Doppler estimate or the spurious, environment-dependent CSI patterns used in prior works. Since these projections are unordered and may recur due to random multipath propagation, we introduce MORIC, a novel order- and repetition-invariant time-series classification model for robust Wi-Fi-based HAR. Experimental results on the collected dataset show that the proposed method outperforms state-of-the-art approaches in cross-user hand motion recognition, especially for challenging gestures. Incorporating only a few calibration samples further improves accuracy, demonstrating MORIC's adaptability and highlighting the potential of the proposed methodology for practical Wi-Fi sensing in real-world scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.12997 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Top: unwrapped raw CSI phase at time t0, linear STO/SFO model, and compensated CSI phase across subcarriers; bottom left: raw CSI phase before pre-processing; bottom right: CSI phase after compensation over time. where Hfc m,n(s) denotes the CSI between the transmit antenna m and the receive antenna n at time s. The summation runs over L distinct propagation paths. The term βl(s) ∈ C represents the complex gain asso… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Geometry of the distance change between a fixed observer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (8 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: The geometric configuration of signal propagation between a Wi-Fi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Environmental reflection points are drawn from von Mises–Fisher [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Example Doppler velocity projections over time for four arbitrary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The diagram illustrates the proposed method for Wi-Fi-based HAR. First, Wi-Fi CSI signals are transformed into Doppler-velocity peojections that capture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Four hand activities performed by users in the UTHAMO dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Doppler velocity vector SNR in dB, computed using (45) and aggregated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Generalization accuracy of MORIC to unseen users averaged over six [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Generalization accuracy of MORIC to unseen users averaged over six [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

WiFuse: An Attention Mechanism for Human Activity Recognition using Fused CSI Amplitude and Delay-Doppler Channel Features
cs.CV 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A dual-stream CSI framework fusing amplitude and Delay-Doppler features with a ResNet-TCN attention model reaches 95.28% on XRF55 and 98.20% on Wi-MIR.
DoRF: Doppler Radiance Fields for Robust Human Activity Recognition Using Wi-Fi
eess.SP 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Doppler radiance fields, built by factorizing Wi-Fi Doppler projections into 3D velocities and resampling them on a fixed sphere grid, improve cross-user activity recognition accuracy from 51.5% to 54.8% on the UTHAMO...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Wifi-based human sensing with deep learning: Recent advances, challenges, and opportunities,

I. Ahmad, A. Ullah, and W. Choi, “Wifi-based human sensing with deep learning: Recent advances, challenges, and opportunities,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society , 2024

work page 2024
[2]

Evaluating self-supervised learning for wifi csi-based human activity recognition,

K. Xu, J. Wang, H. Zhu, and D. Zheng, “Evaluating self-supervised learning for wifi csi-based human activity recognition,” ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks, 2025

work page 2025
[3]

Ml-track: Passive human tracking using wifi multi-link round-trip csi and particle filter,

F. Shi, W. Li, C. Tang, Y . Fang, P. V . Brennan, and K. Chetty, “Ml-track: Passive human tracking using wifi multi-link round-trip csi and particle filter,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing , 2025

work page 2025
[4]

Pa-count: Passenger counting in vehicles using wi-fi signals,

H. Jiang, S. Chen, Z. Xiao, J. Hu, J. Liu, and S. Dustdar, “Pa-count: Passenger counting in vehicles using wi-fi signals,” IEEE transactions on mobile computing, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 2684–2697, 2023

work page 2023
[5]

Wi-actigraph: Wi-fi csi sensing for sleep disturbances in the care of older people,

A. Alzaabi and T. Arslan, “Wi-actigraph: Wi-fi csi sensing for sleep disturbances in the care of older people,” IEEE Sensors Journal , 2025

work page 2025
[6]

Wi-fi sensing based on ieee 802.11 bf,

C. Chen, H. Song, Q. Li, F. Meneghello, F. Restuccia, and C. Cordeiro, “Wi-fi sensing based on ieee 802.11 bf,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 121–127, 2022

work page 2022
[7]

An overview on ieee 802.11 bf: Wlan sensing,

R. Du, H. Hua, H. Xie, X. Song, Z. Lyu, M. Hu, Y . Xin, S. McCann, M. Montemurro, T. X. Han et al., “An overview on ieee 802.11 bf: Wlan sensing,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , 2024

work page 2024
[8]

A survey on behavior recognition using wifi channel state information,

S. Yousefi, H. Narui, S. Dayal, S. Ermon, and S. Valaee, “A survey on behavior recognition using wifi channel state information,” IEEE Commu- nications Magazine, vol. 55, no. 10, pp. 98–104, 2017

work page 2017

Show all 37 references

[9]

Litehar: Lightweight human activity recog- nition from wifi signals with random convolution kernels,

H. Salehinejad and S. Valaee, “Litehar: Lightweight human activity recog- nition from wifi signals with random convolution kernels,” in ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2022, pp. 4068–4072

2022
[10]

A multiple wifi sensors assisted human activity recognition scheme for smart home,

J. Ding, Y . Wang, Q. Xie, and J. Niu, “A multiple wifi sensors assisted human activity recognition scheme for smart home,” IEEE Sensors Journal, 2024

2024
[11]

Fresnel zone- based voting with capsule networks for human activity recognition from channel state information,

R. Djogo, H. Salehinejad, N. Hasanzadeh, and S. Valaee, “Fresnel zone- based voting with capsule networks for human activity recognition from channel state information,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , pp. 1–1, 2024

2024
[12]

A study on the lightweight and fast response gru techniques for indoor continuous motion recognition based on wi-fi csi,

K. Jang, C. Sun, J. Zhou, Y . Seo, Y . Kim, and S. Choi, “A study on the lightweight and fast response gru techniques for indoor continuous motion recognition based on wi-fi csi,” IEEE Access, 2025

2025
[13]

Csi-glstn: A location-independent csi human activity recognition method based on spatio-temporal and channel feature fusion,

Y . Zhang, D. Wu, Y . Wang, Y . Zhang, G. Jiand, and J. Ai, “Csi-glstn: A location-independent csi human activity recognition method based on spatio-temporal and channel feature fusion,” IEEE Transactions on Instru- mentation and Measurement , 2024

2024
[14]

Rosefi: A robust sedentary behavior monitoring system with commodity wifi devices,

C. Peng, L. Gui, B. Sheng, Z. Guo, and F. Xiao, “Rosefi: A robust sedentary behavior monitoring system with commodity wifi devices,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing , vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 6470–6489, 2023

2023
[15]

Wifi csi-based device-free sensing: from fresnel zone model to csi-ratio model,

D. Wu, Y . Zeng, F. Zhang, and D. Zhang, “Wifi csi-based device-free sensing: from fresnel zone model to csi-ratio model,” CCF Transactions on Pervasive Computing and Interaction , pp. 1–15, 2022

2022
[16]

Fewsense, towards a scalable and cross-domain wi-fi sensing system using few-shot learning,

G. Yin, J. Zhang, G. Shen, and Y . Chen, “Fewsense, towards a scalable and cross-domain wi-fi sensing system using few-shot learning,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing , vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 453–468, 2022

2022
[17]

Exposing data leakage in wi-fi csi-based human action recogni- tion: A critical analysis,

D. Varga, “Exposing data leakage in wi-fi csi-based human action recogni- tion: A critical analysis,” Inventions, vol. 9, no. 4, p. 90, 2024

2024
[18]

Sharp: Environment and person independent activity recognition with commodity ieee 802.11 access points,

F. Meneghello, D. Garlisi, N. Dal Fabbro, I. Tinnirello, and M. Rossi, “Sharp: Environment and person independent activity recognition with commodity ieee 802.11 access points,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 6160–6175, 2022

2022
[19]

Afall: Wi-fi- based device-free fall detection system using spatial angle of arrival,

S. Chen, W. Yang, Y . Xu, Y . Geng, B. Xin, and L. Huang, “Afall: Wi-fi- based device-free fall detection system using spatial angle of arrival,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing , vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 4471–4484, 2022

2022
[20]

Widar3. 0: Zero-effort cross-domain gesture recognition with wi-fi,

Y . Zhang, Y . Zheng, K. Qian, G. Zhang, Y . Liu, C. Wu, and Z. Yang, “Widar3. 0: Zero-effort cross-domain gesture recognition with wi-fi,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 8671–8688, 2021

2021
[21]

Least squares methods,

˚A. Bj ¨orck, “Least squares methods,” Handbook of numerical analysis , vol. 1, pp. 465–652, 1990

1990
[22]

Impact of antenna correlation on the capacity of multiantenna channels,

A. M. Tulino, A. Lozano, and S. Verd ´u, “Impact of antenna correlation on the capacity of multiantenna channels,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 51, no. 7, pp. 2491–2509, 2005

2005
[23]

Wifi sensing with channel state information: A survey,

Y . Ma, G. Zhou, and S. Wang, “Wifi sensing with channel state information: A survey,”ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 1–36, 2019

2019
[24]

Decimeter ranging with channel state information,

N. Tadayon, M. T. Rahman, S. Han, S. Valaee, and W. Yu, “Decimeter ranging with channel state information,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 3453–3468, 2019

2019
[25]

Correlation properties in channels with von mises-fisher distribution of scatterers,

K. Turbic, M. Kasparick, and S. Sta ´nczak, “Correlation properties in channels with von mises-fisher distribution of scatterers,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, 2024

2024
[26]

Estimating and interpreting the instantaneous frequency of a signal-part 1: Fundamentals,

B. Boashash et al., “Estimating and interpreting the instantaneous frequency of a signal-part 1: Fundamentals,” Proc. Ieee, vol. 80, no. 4, pp. 520–538, 1992

1992
[27]

Adaptive spectral doppler estimation,

F. Gran, A. Jakobsson, and J. A. Jensen, “Adaptive spectral doppler estimation,” IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 700–714, 2009

2009
[28]

Doppler estimation using a coherent ultrawide-band random noise radar,

R. M. Narayanan and M. Dawood, “Doppler estimation using a coherent ultrawide-band random noise radar,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 868–878, 2002

2002
[29]

Doppler power spectrum in channels with von mises-fisher distribution of scatterers,

K. Turbic, M. Kasparick, and S. Sta ´nczak, “Doppler power spectrum in channels with von mises-fisher distribution of scatterers,” IEEE Communi- cations Letters, 2025

2025
[30]

Random convolution kernels with multi-scale decomposition for preterm eeg inter-burst detection,

C. Lundy and J. M. O’Toole, “Random convolution kernels with multi-scale decomposition for preterm eeg inter-burst detection,” in2021 29th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 1182–1186

2021
[31]

Joint human orientation-activity recognition using wifi signals for human-machine inter- action,

H. Salehinejad, N. Hasanzadeh, R. Djogo, and S. Valaee, “Joint human orientation-activity recognition using wifi signals for human-machine inter- action,” in ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

2023
[32]

Rocket: exceptionally fast and accurate time series classification using random convolutional kernels,

A. Dempster, F. Petitjean, and G. I. Webb, “Rocket: exceptionally fast and accurate time series classification using random convolutional kernels,” Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery , vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1454–1495, 2020

2020
[33]

Generalized hampel filters,

R. K. Pearson, Y . Neuvo, J. Astola, and M. Gabbouj, “Generalized hampel filters,” EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing, vol. 2016, pp. 1–18, 2016

2016
[34]

Predicting good probabilities with supervised learning,

A. Niculescu-Mizil and R. Caruana, “Predicting good probabilities with supervised learning,” in Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine learning , 2005, pp. 625–632

2005
[35]

Free your csi: A channel state information extraction platform for modern wi-fi chipsets,

F. Gringoli, M. Schulz, J. Link, and M. Hollick, “Free your csi: A channel state information extraction platform for modern wi-fi chipsets,” in Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Wireless Network Testbeds, Experimental Evaluation & Characterization , ser. WiNTEC...

2019
[36]

Enhancing generalization in human activity recognition through improved wi-fi channel state information phase process- ing and antenna pair selection,

N. Hasanzadeh and S. Valaee, “Enhancing generalization in human activity recognition through improved wi-fi channel state information phase process- ing and antenna pair selection,” in 2024 IEEE 34rd International Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing (MLSP) , 2024

2024
[37]

Decoupled weight decay regularization,

I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter, “Decoupled weight decay regularization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017

2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Wifi-based human sensing with deep learning: Recent advances, challenges, and opportunities,

I. Ahmad, A. Ullah, and W. Choi, “Wifi-based human sensing with deep learning: Recent advances, challenges, and opportunities,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society , 2024

work page 2024

[2] [2]

Evaluating self-supervised learning for wifi csi-based human activity recognition,

K. Xu, J. Wang, H. Zhu, and D. Zheng, “Evaluating self-supervised learning for wifi csi-based human activity recognition,” ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks, 2025

work page 2025

[3] [3]

Ml-track: Passive human tracking using wifi multi-link round-trip csi and particle filter,

F. Shi, W. Li, C. Tang, Y . Fang, P. V . Brennan, and K. Chetty, “Ml-track: Passive human tracking using wifi multi-link round-trip csi and particle filter,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing , 2025

work page 2025

[4] [4]

Pa-count: Passenger counting in vehicles using wi-fi signals,

H. Jiang, S. Chen, Z. Xiao, J. Hu, J. Liu, and S. Dustdar, “Pa-count: Passenger counting in vehicles using wi-fi signals,” IEEE transactions on mobile computing, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 2684–2697, 2023

work page 2023

[5] [5]

Wi-actigraph: Wi-fi csi sensing for sleep disturbances in the care of older people,

A. Alzaabi and T. Arslan, “Wi-actigraph: Wi-fi csi sensing for sleep disturbances in the care of older people,” IEEE Sensors Journal , 2025

work page 2025

[6] [6]

Wi-fi sensing based on ieee 802.11 bf,

C. Chen, H. Song, Q. Li, F. Meneghello, F. Restuccia, and C. Cordeiro, “Wi-fi sensing based on ieee 802.11 bf,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 121–127, 2022

work page 2022

[7] [7]

An overview on ieee 802.11 bf: Wlan sensing,

R. Du, H. Hua, H. Xie, X. Song, Z. Lyu, M. Hu, Y . Xin, S. McCann, M. Montemurro, T. X. Han et al., “An overview on ieee 802.11 bf: Wlan sensing,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , 2024

work page 2024

[8] [8]

A survey on behavior recognition using wifi channel state information,

S. Yousefi, H. Narui, S. Dayal, S. Ermon, and S. Valaee, “A survey on behavior recognition using wifi channel state information,” IEEE Commu- nications Magazine, vol. 55, no. 10, pp. 98–104, 2017

work page 2017