Skip to content

Reliability-Gated Fusion of Consumer Head and Foot IMUs for Lower-Body 3D Pose

Sep 2026 · 0 citations · 40 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

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.

View source

Similar papers

#computer vision Review Sep 2017

Agile Software Development Methods: Review and Analysis

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. · 727 citations · ⚡54
#computer vision Jun 2008

The impact of agile practices on communication in software development

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. · 401 citations · ⚡48
#machine learning Review Open access Oct 2014

Software development in startup companies: A systematic mapping study

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. · 394 citations · ⚡54

Diffusion models as plug-and-play priors

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. · 316 citations · ⚡15

Related blog posts

Microsoft Research Blog Oct 6, 2026

What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us

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.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.