aiqbench analysis
This study demonstrates that training-free general-purpose models like Jev currently fail to match supervised approaches in Human Activity Recognition, with macro-F1 scores significantly lower than trained classifiers. The research highlights that simply adding numerical features degrades performance and suggests the sensor-to-model interface is a critical bottleneck rather than a neutral preprocessing step. For practitioners relying on zero-shot or few-shot capabilities, these findings underscore the necessity of task-specific training to achieve reliable recognition probabilities.
More Features Are Not More Evidence: Limits of Training-Free Human Activity Recognition with Jev
arXiv:2609.36154v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: General-purpose models promise sensor-based decisions without training a task-specific classifier, which could reduce the dependence of Human Activity Recognition (HAR) on labeled data. Yet it remains unclear whether such models can directly interpret deterministic descriptions of physical sensor signals well enough to replace or complement trained HAR models. We study this question using Jev, a fixed general-purpose probabilistic decision model, on 1,800 class-balanced accelerometer windows from WISDM, UCI341, and PAMAP2. Jev receives no labeled examples, retrieval context, or HAR-specific parameter updates. We evaluate three deterministic sensor representations and compare 5,400 Jev decisions with a generative baseline and three supervised HAR models. Jev remains far below supervised recognition, with its strongest representation reaching macro-F1 of 0.038, 0.118, and 0.089 across the three datasets, compared with 0.686 to 0.907 for the supervised models. More numerical features do not improve Jev. Instead, they reduce recognition on all three datasets, while augmenting the same numerical evidence with a deterministic semantic rendering partially recovers performance, although the experiment does not isolate semantics from the accompanying serialization and redundancy changes. Jev is fast and inexpensive to query, but its probabilities are not reliably calibrated for recognition. A post-hoc fusion analysis finds a small improvement on WISDM that does not replicate on UCI341 or PAMAP2. These results show that training-free sensor decisions depend not only on the information available in the signal, but also on whether the model can use the representation through which that information is exposed. The sensor-to-model interface should therefore be treated as part of the model evaluation rather than as a neutral preprocessing step.
Abstract:General-purpose models promise sensor-based decisions without training a task-specific classifier, which could reduce the dependence of Human Activity Recognition (HAR) on labeled data. Yet it remains unclear whether such models can directly interpret deterministic descriptions of physical sensor signals well enough to replace or complement trained HAR models. We study this question using Jev, a fixed general-purpose probabilistic decision model, on 1,800 class-balanced accelerometer windows from WISDM, UCI341, and PAMAP2. Jev receives no labeled examples, retrieval context, or HAR-specific parameter updates. We evaluate three deterministic sensor representations and compare 5,400 Jev decisions with a generative baseline and three supervised HAR models. Jev remains far below supervised recognition, with its strongest representation reaching macro-F1 of 0.038, 0.118, and 0.089 across the three datasets, compared with 0.686 to 0.907 for the supervised models. More numerical features do not improve Jev. Instead, they reduce recognition on all three datasets, while augmenting the same numerical evidence with a deterministic semantic rendering partially recovers performance, although the experiment does not isolate semantics from the accompanying serialization and redundancy changes. Jev is fast and inexpensive to query, but its probabilities are not reliably calibrated for recognition. A post-hoc fusion analysis finds a small improvement on WISDM that does not replicate on UCI341 or PAMAP2. These results show that training-free sensor decisions depend not only on the information available in the signal, but also on whether the model can use the representation through which that information is exposed. The sensor-to-model interface should therefore be treated as part of the model evaluation rather than as a neutral preprocessing step.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2609.36154 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.36154v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.36154 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 358 words
