The ability to generalise towards either new users or unforeseen behaviours is a key requirement for activity recognition systems in ubiquitous computing. Differences in recognition performance for the two application cases can be significant, and user-dependent performance is typically assumed to be an upper bound on performance. We demonstrate that this assumption does not hold for the widely used cross-validation evaluation scheme that is typically employed both during system bootstrapping and for reporting results. We describe how the characteristics of segmented time-series data render random cross-validation a poor fit, as adjacent segments are not statistically independent. We develop an alternative approach -- meta-segmented cross validation -- that explicitly circumvents this issue and evaluate it on two data-sets. Results indicate a significant drop in performance across a variety of feature extraction and classification methods if this bias is removed, and that prolonged, repetitive activities are particularly affected.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hammerla et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: