What question does the HAR study ask?

Whether general-purpose models can directly interpret deterministic descriptions of physical sensor signals well enough to replace or complement trained human activity recognition models.

What data does the HAR evaluation use?

1,800 class-balanced accelerometer windows from WISDM, UCI341, and PAMAP2, with 5,400 Jev decisions compared against a generative baseline and three supervised HAR models.

How much context does Jev receive in the experiment?

Jev receives no labeled examples, retrieval context, or HAR-specific parameter updates in the study's setup.

What macro-F1 does Jev reach on the three datasets?

Its strongest representation reaches macro-F1 of 0.038, 0.118, and 0.089 across the three datasets, compared with 0.686 to 0.907 for the supervised models.

Do more numerical features help Jev recognize activities?

No. More numerical features do not improve Jev and instead reduce recognition on all three datasets.

Does semantic rendering recover any performance?

Augmenting the same numerical evidence with a deterministic semantic rendering partially recovers performance, but the experiment does not isolate semantics from the accompanying serialization and redundancy changes.

What are the calibration and fusion findings in the HAR study?

Jev is fast and inexpensive to query, but its probabilities are not reliably calibrated for recognition, and a post-hoc fusion analysis finds a small improvement on WISDM that does not replicate on UCI341 or PAMAP2.

CommunityJev Benchmarks & Evaluations

More Features Are Not More Evidence: Limits of Training-Free Human Activity Recognition with Jev (arXiv 2609.36154)

An evaluation of Jev on training-free human activity recognition using 1,800 class-balanced accelerometer windows from WISDM, UCI341, and PAMAP2. Its strongest representation reaches macro-F1 of 0.038, 0.118, and 0.089, versus 0.686 to 0.907 for the supervised models.

See highlights

Open arxiv.org

Format: Article
Published by: Community
Last verified: Oct 2026

Tagscommunity research arxiv sensors classification robustness

Works forJev for Classification Jev for Evaluation

Used inJev for Healthcare & Life Sciences Jev for Robotics & Hardware

Highlights

Evaluates a fixed general-purpose decision model on 1,800 class-balanced accelerometer windows from three datasets.
Jev receives no labeled examples, retrieval context, or HAR-specific parameter updates.
Strongest representation reaches macro-F1 of 0.038, 0.118, and 0.089, against 0.686 to 0.907 for supervised models.
More numerical features do not improve Jev and reduce recognition on all three datasets.
A post-hoc fusion finds a small WISDM improvement that does not replicate on UCI341 or PAMAP2.

Watch out

arXiv preprint posted September 28, 2026 (cs.AI, cs.LG) by Orhan Konak; 15 pages. The semantic-rendering experiment does not isolate semantics from accompanying serialization and redundancy changes, and Jev's probabilities are not reliably calibrated for recognition, so the negative result is specific to the tested representations.

Questions about this entry

Short answers drawn from the linked project or page.

Related terms

Glossary definitions related to this entry.

Autoresearch

More Jev resources like this

Does a Hosted Decision Model Respect Irrelevant Alternatives? A Pre-Registered Test of Option-Set Dependence in Jev (arXiv 2610.16655)

A pre-registered study of whether jev-1.13.0 satisfies independence of irrelevant alternatives, using 299,463 calls on intent and topic classification. Every added option shifts the log-odds between the gold and strongest wrong label by 0.20–0.52 nats RMS, 1.2 to 3 times run-to-run variation.