A multimodal capture pipeline is built that records four-view RGB-D video together with an AirPods head IMU and two Striv insole IMUs, synchronize the streams post-hoc, and generate pseudo-ground-truth with SAM 3D Body, yielding a 35-take single-subject benchmark spanning gait, turning, vertical, everyday, and clinically inspired motions.
Abstract
Consumer earbuds already stream inertial motion data from the head, one of the most widely worn sensor locations on the body. We ask how much of the 3D body pose a single such head IMU can recover, and whether adding more consumer sensors actually helps. We build a multimodal capture pipeline that records four-view RGB-D video together with an AirPods head IMU and two Striv insole IMUs, synchronize the streams post-hoc, and generate pseudo-ground-truth with SAM 3D Body, yielding a 35-take single-subject benchmark spanning gait, turning, vertical, everyday, and clinically inspired motions. Adapting two recurrent model families (IMUPoser and MobilePoser), we show that one head IMU recovers lower-body pose at 79.0 mm rigid-MPJPE and per-foot ground contact at 0.809 macro-F1, and that a causal variant retains most of this accuracy at streaming latency. In paired per-take significance tests across both families, adding the consumer foot IMUs never significantly improves pose and significantly degrades it in two of four model-split combinations; a mounting-bias probe and feet-only ablation identify insole orientation quality, not foot placement, as the mechanism. Extending the output to a 20-joint full-body skeleton maps the boundary: gross distal-arm motion is partially recoverable from the head alone, proximal upper-body pose is not, and staged fine-tuning recovers the leg accuracy that naive joint training sacrifices to multi-task dilution. For learned pose from consumer wearables, sensor reliability, not sensor count, is the binding constraint here. For the devices tested, the earbud is its sweet spot. Code is available at https://github.com/ZhilinGuo/one-sensor-whole-body.
This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.
P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al.· arXiv.org· 727 citations· ⚡54
The study shows that agile practices improve both informal and formal communication, but indicates that, in larger development situations involving multiple external stakeholders, a mismatch of adequate communication mechanisms can sometimes even hinder the communication.
M. Pikkarainen, Jukka Haikara, O. Salo et al.· Empirical Software Engineeri...· 401 citations· ⚡48
The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.
Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al.· Information and Software Tec...· 394 citations· ⚡54
The possibility of inferring high-dimensional data inference in a model that consists of a prior and an auxiliary differentiable constraint given some additional information is considered, thereby allowing a range of potential applications in adapting models to new domains and tasks.
Alexandros Graikos, Esmeralda S. Whitammer, N. Jojic et al.· Neural Information Processin...· 316 citations· ⚡15
Jennifer Neville did not want to go into computer science—but that’s exactly where she landed. Neville discusses the starts and stops that led to her professional sweet spot and her work identifying “surprising failures” making it hard for AI to handle complexity. The post What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us appeared first on Microsoft Research.
Computer scientist, entrepreneur, and philanthropist will collaborate with the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing to advance AI and scientific discovery.