frank/ruvnet--RuView
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/ruvnet/RuView synced 2026-07-25 17:51:48 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

feat(benchmarks): measurement (b) MEASURED — optimization transfer only, mean-pose baseline wins

Browse Source 
WiFlow-STD fine-tuned on 2,046 fresh single-room ESP32 paired windows
(temporal 70/15/15, 70->540 adapter, K=17): pretrained-init 65% PCK@20 vs
scratch 0% (optimization transfer) but frozen-trunk ~0% (no feature
transfer), and NOTHING beats the mean-pose baseline (95.9% PCK@20 —
single subject, near-static normalized coords). Honesty gates held: pred
std 0.0113 (non-constant model) but mean-baseline dominance means no
citable CSI->pose capability from this data. ADR-152 open question 1
answered partially; definitive answer needs multi-subject/position data.

Two new aligner findings: heterogeneous csi_shape with silent zero-padding
(~20%), and extractCsiMatrix's transposed shape label (frame-major data,
[nSc, nFrames] label) — fixes pending.

Co-Authored-By: claude-flow <ruv@ruv.net>
This commit is contained in:
ruv
2026-06-10 23:14:20 -04:00
parent 575ee4d2eb
commit fc4a8652ee
4 changed files with 2019 additions and 1 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
docs/adr/ADR-152-wifi-pose-sota-2026-intake.md
+1
View File
@@ -108,6 +108,7 @@ Pull the Apache-2.0 weights + 360k-sample dataset; run three measurements: (a) t
## 4. Open questions (carried from the research run)
1. Does WiFlow-STD retain accuracy when fine-tuned on ESP32-S3/C6 CSI (fewer subcarriers, lower SNR), scored on our 17-keypoint set? (§2.2 answers this.)
> **Partial answer (MEASURED 2026-06-11, measurement (b) on 2,046 single-room windows — `benchmarks/wiflow-std/RESULTS.md`):** pretrained init shows strong *optimization* transfer (65% PCK@20 vs scratch's 0% collapse under the same budget) but **no feature transfer** (frozen-trunk + linear adapter ≈ 0%). And no run beat the mean-pose baseline (95.9% PCK@20 — single subject, near-static normalized coords), so no CSI→pose capability is citable from this data. A definitive answer needs multi-subject/multi-position data where the mean pose is weak.
2. Is the PerceptAlign dataset downloadable under a usable license, and does the two-checkerboard procedure work with ESP32 transceiver geometry? (§2.1.4 gate.)
3. Will esp_wifi_sensing evolve toward 802.11bf compliance, replacing opportunistic CSI extraction?