| Literature DB >> 35336518 |
Weidong Zhang1,2, Zexing Wang1,2, Xuangou Wu1,2.
Abstract
Gesture recognition plays an important role in smart homes, such as human-computer interaction, identity authentication, etc. Most of the existing WiFi signal-based approaches exploit a large number of channel state information (CSI) datasets to train a gestures classification model; however, these models require a large number of human participants to train, and are not robust to the recognition environment. To address this problem, we propose a WiFi signal-based gesture recognition system with matched averaging federated learning (WiMA). Since there are differences in the distribution of WiFi signal changes caused by the same gesture in different environments, the traditional federated parameter average algorithm seriously affects the recognition accuracy of the model. In WiMA, we exploit the neuron arrangement invariance of neural networks in parameter aggregation, which can improve the robustness of the gesture recognition model with heterogeneous CSI data of different training environments. We carried out experiments with seven participant users in a distributed gesture recognition environment. Experimental results show that the average accuracy of our proposed system is up to 90.4%, which is very close to the accuracy of state-of-the-art approaches with centralized training models.Entities:
Keywords: CSI; IoT; federated learning; gesture recognition
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35336518 PMCID: PMC8951077 DOI: 10.3390/s22062349
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1BVP series for different users. (a) BVP series of user1. (b) BVP series of user2.
Figure 2Federal learning framework.
Figure 3Different method comparison.
Figure 4WiMA system architecture.
Figure 5Local model structure.
Figure 6Confusion matrix of WiMA under different number of users. (a) Users number = 7, accuracy = 0.90. (b) Users number = 6, accuracy = 0.88. (c) Users number = 4, accuracy = 0.85. (d) Users number = 2, accuracy = 0.79.
Comparison of the accuracy of various methods with the number of users in different rooms.
| Room | Room1 | Room2 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| User Num | 2 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 7 | |
| Methods | Widar3.0 | 0.80 | 0.846 | 0.88 | 0.91 | 0.8 | 0.84 | 0.88 | 0.91 |
| WiMA | 0.791 | 0.85 | 0.875 | 0.904 | 0.78 | 0.85 | 0.89 | 0.90 | |
| Global | 0.83 | 0.84 | 0.86 | 0.88 | 0.83 | 0.84 | 0.86 | 0.88 | |
| FedAvg | 0.78 | 0.85 | 0.87 | 0.82 | 0.76 | 0.83 | 0.85 | 0.88 | |
Figure 7Comparison of WiMA algorithm with three methods—Room1.
Figure 8Comparison of WiMA algorithm with three method—Room2.