The channel-gated model is the most accurate of the authors' learned fusion arms on clean data and its gates suppress the natively biased foot-orientation channels on clean real data without test-time supervision and flag dropout bursts at 0.92-0.999 AUROC.
Abstract
Sparse inertial pose estimation promises camera-free motion capture from consumer devices, but consumer sensors are unreliable: firmware-fused orientations are biased, mounting varies between sessions, and streams drift or drop out. On a new 35-take single-subject benchmark pairing an earbud head inertial measurement unit (IMU) with two smart-insole foot IMUs (SAM-3D-Body pseudo-ground-truth labels), we show the reliability problem is channel-level: a channel ablation isolates foot acceleration as the most informative input (66.6 mm vs. 79.0 mm head-only) and the firmware-fused foot orientation as the liability that destroys the gain. We therefore let the model learn how much to trust each channel of each stream: one temporal gate per stream per channel block, trained with an auxiliary reliability objective on synthetically corrupted pretraining data. The channel-gated model is the most accurate of our learned fusion arms on clean data (69.4 mm vs. 83.7 static, 86.6 ungated) and under every simulated fault (bias in training; drift, dropout eval-only); its gates suppress the natively biased foot-orientation channels on clean real data without test-time supervision and flag dropout bursts at 0.92-0.999 AUROC. Two contrasts: dropping a channel known a priori to fail is flat across foot faults but collapses when an unanticipated stream fails (head dropout: 92.9 vs. 79.3 mm); and a fine-tuned HMD-Poser is more accurate on clean data (64.4 mm) and nominally under drift, with no significant paired difference under bias or dropout, but a larger worst-case degradation from clean (+16.1 vs. +3.5 mm, single seed). Learning to gate reliability instead of sensor count is the lever for deployable sparse inertial capture. Code is available at https://github.com/ZhilinGuo/reliability-gated-imu-fusion.
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.