FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1574398002> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1574398002 endingPage "4" @default.
• W1574398002 startingPage "1" @default.
• W1574398002 abstract "Activity Recognition has made significant progress in the past years. We strongly believe however that we could make far greater progress if we build more systematically on each other’s work. Comparing the activity recognition community with other more mature communities (e.g., those of computer vision and speech recognition) there appear to be two keyingredients that are missing in ours. First, the more mature communities have established a set of well-defined or accepted research problems, and second, the communities have a tradition to compare their algorithms on established and shared benchmark datasets. Establishing both of these ingredients and evolving them over time in a more explicit manner should enable us to progress our field more rapidly. Index Terms—Activity Recognition, Evaluation, Code and Database Sharing I. WHERE DOES THE COMMUNITY NEED TO IMPROVE? In this paper we argue that our community of activity recognition has to improve on two fronts. 1. Research Problems Develop and evolve well-defined and accepted research questions that we believe are essential to make progress in activity recognition. 2. Evaluate, Analyze, and Share In order to make progress in activity recognition we have to understand and analyze thoroughly the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches. Therefore we need to a) share datasets and establish benchmarks to enable direct comparison and b) enable reproducibility of algorithms and results so that others can profit from our work and build upon each other’s work. The first front, namely the definition and maturation of welldefined research problems seems obvious but is – in our view – one of the weaknesses of our area. In many communities such well-defined problems can be tackled (let’s take again the example of computer vision, in which object class recognition or optical flow estimation exist as challenges). In our community however we often take our subjective ideas about activity recognition, motivate why we think this is an important problem, and then record our own – typically non-shared – datasets to evaluate our algorithms. While this is fine at an early stage of a community we strongly believe that we have to rethink this practice and establish attractive research problems that are relevant to pursue and consequently are dedicated to work on. It is important to note that these research problems will and have to evolve over time. One of the reasons but not the only one is the progress we are making on previous research problems. However, these well-defined problems are absolutely essential to enable comparison as well as to analyze and understand our progress. The second front is equally important and again a weak spot of our field. As already mentioned most of us analyze their great new algorithm on a new dataset making it hard to understand the progress that was made. Instead, we should develop (or even enforce) the practice that all new algorithms are compared to previous ones, either on common datasets or using the code shared from previous algorithms. As many of our algorithms originate from machine learning research, it is often inappropriately taken for granted that a trendy algorithm there, translates to superior performance in activity recognition. It is also worth noting that it is not enough to simply state performance numbers in such comparative studies. Instead one has to analyze and discuss why which algorithm performs differently. While this is again standard practice in other research areas this type of analysis and scientific knowledge generation is nearly completely absent in our field. II. OUR BEST RECOMMENDATIONS The discussion of the previous section is based on the following cyclic approach to research. Each cycle comprises four steps: 1) Start with a clear problem definition, 2) Evaluate the State-of-the-Art 3) Synthesize, propose, and implement a (typically novel) Problem Solution 4) Analysis of the proposed solution on real-world data These cycles require both points mentioned in the previous section. Without a set of well-defined problems we cannot start with a clear problem definition and (equally important) cannot evaluate the state-of-the-art. In current activity recognition research it is often not clear how a particular approach might perform on the chosen problem as respective papers often do not formulate the problem definition clearly enough. This in turn is essential to develop a problem solution that is typically synthesized from previous research and often contains novel aspects. These novel aspects again rely on a better understanding of the respective algorithms’ strengths and weaknesses. Probably the most important part of the cycle however is the analysis of the proposed solution where most of the novel scientific knowledge is created. In this last step the Feasibility studies Interes0ng for applica0on Fundamental research" @default.
• W1574398002 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1574398002 creator A5001053523 @default.
• W1574398002 creator A5027114416 @default.
• W1574398002 creator A5036113570 @default.
• W1574398002 creator A5051534545 @default.
• W1574398002 date "2010-01-01" @default.
• W1574398002 modified "2023-10-02" @default.
• W1574398002 title "Standing on the Shoulders of Other Researchers - A Position Statement" @default.
• W1574398002 cites W102323576 @default.
• W1574398002 cites W1527439439 @default.
• W1574398002 cites W1877546439 @default.
• W1574398002 cites W2112865076 @default.
• W1574398002 cites W2117614111 @default.
• W1574398002 cites W2133517640 @default.
• W1574398002 cites W2137318194 @default.
• W1574398002 cites W2141253759 @default.
• W1574398002 cites W2151937625 @default.
• W1574398002 cites W2538483848 @default.
• W1574398002 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W1574398002 type Work @default.
• W1574398002 sameAs 1574398002 @default.
• W1574398002 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W1574398002 countsByYear W15743980022012 @default.
• W1574398002 crossrefType "proceedings-article" @default.
• W1574398002 hasAuthorship W1574398002A5001053523 @default.
• W1574398002 hasAuthorship W1574398002A5027114416 @default.
• W1574398002 hasAuthorship W1574398002A5036113570 @default.
• W1574398002 hasAuthorship W1574398002A5051534545 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConcept C13280743 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConcept C175444787 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConcept C177264268 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConcept C181622380 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConcept C185798385 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConcept C202444582 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConcept C202532154 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConcept C2522767166 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConcept C539667460 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConcept C63882131 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConcept C9652623 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConceptScore W1574398002C127413603 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConceptScore W1574398002C13280743 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConceptScore W1574398002C154945302 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConceptScore W1574398002C15744967 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConceptScore W1574398002C162324750 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConceptScore W1574398002C175444787 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConceptScore W1574398002C177264268 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConceptScore W1574398002C181622380 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConceptScore W1574398002C185798385 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConceptScore W1574398002C199360897 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConceptScore W1574398002C202444582 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConceptScore W1574398002C202532154 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConceptScore W1574398002C205649164 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConceptScore W1574398002C2522767166 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConceptScore W1574398002C33923547 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConceptScore W1574398002C41008148 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConceptScore W1574398002C539667460 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConceptScore W1574398002C63882131 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConceptScore W1574398002C77805123 @default.
• W1574398002 hasConceptScore W1574398002C9652623 @default.
• W1574398002 hasLocation W15743980021 @default.
• W1574398002 hasOpenAccess W1574398002 @default.
• W1574398002 hasPrimaryLocation W15743980021 @default.
• W1574398002 hasRelatedWork W1500777653 @default.
• W1574398002 hasRelatedWork W2726318948 @default.
• W1574398002 hasRelatedWork W2900030101 @default.
• W1574398002 hasRelatedWork W3010532060 @default.
• W1574398002 hasRelatedWork W3195232465 @default.
• W1574398002 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1574398002 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1574398002 magId "1574398002" @default.
• W1574398002 workType "article" @default.