mirror of
https://github.com/ruvnet/RuView.git
synced 2026-06-02 00:58:56 +02:00
docs(study): cross-dataset confirmed on harder NTU-Fi-HumanID task
Re-ran transfer on 14-class person-ID (harder than 6-activity HAR): same null-transfer result (MM-Fi pretrain 91.7% = random 92.8%). Unified root cause: CSI in-domain classification lives in the target-trained readout (random projection already separable); learned reps don't transfer across subjects/rooms/datasets. WiFi-CSI is distribution-locked. Addresses the 'HAR too easy' caveat. Co-Authored-By: claude-flow <ruv@ruv.net>
This commit is contained in:
@@ -117,8 +117,14 @@ architecture-agnostic LoRA on the pose head, tested).
|
||||
probe. CSI representations are **distribution-locked** (same root cause as the within-MM-Fi
|
||||
cross-subject/-environment collapse); the practical answer is on-target training/few-shot, not
|
||||
transferable zero-shot features. Caveat: NTU-Fi's 6 coarse activities are an *easy* target (random
|
||||
features → 93%), so it weakly stresses representation quality. A harder cross-dataset pose benchmark
|
||||
remains open.
|
||||
features → 93%), so it weakly stresses representation quality — but re-running on the harder
|
||||
**NTU-Fi-HumanID** task (14-class gait person-ID, chance 7.1%) gave the *same* result (MM-Fi
|
||||
pretrain 91.7% ≈ random 92.8%). **Unified root cause:** for CSI, in-domain classification lives in
|
||||
the *target-trained readout* (a random 256-d projection of 3,420-d CSI is already linearly
|
||||
separable), while the *learned representation* fails to transfer across subjects, rooms, and
|
||||
datasets alike. WiFi-CSI sensing is **distribution-locked**; the answer is on-target few-shot
|
||||
calibration, not transferable features. A harder cross-dataset *pose* benchmark (vs classification)
|
||||
remains the one open variant.
|
||||
- Random-split numbers are reported only to compare to prior work on the same protocol; they are
|
||||
in-domain and partly leaky. The cross-subject / cross-environment numbers are the honest ones.
|
||||
- Action-recognition accuracy is window-level (MM-Fi's own HAR experiment is clip-level); not directly
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user