Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 52 references

mmEgoHand: Egocentric Hand Pose Estimation and Gesture Recognition with Head-mounted Millimeter-wave Radar and IMU

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper aims to show that a radar worn on the head, combined with an inertial measurement unit, can reconstruct the 3D pose of one or two hands, and that these poses make a strong feature for recognizing VR gestures.

desk verdict A genuinely new egocentric hand-pose/gesture dataset and system, but the headline 72.73 mm MPJPE rests on an undefined MediaPipe-to-millimeter conversion that needs fixing before the numbers are interpretable. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13805 v2 pith:4N56KALA submitted 2025-01-23 cs.CV

Yizhe Lv , Tingting Zhang , Zhijian Wang , Yunpeng Song , Han Ding , Jinsong Han , Fei Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords egocentricsensinghandposeestimationmmWaveradarIMUfusiongesturerecognitionTransformervirtualrealityinteractionmulti-modal
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a person's hand pose can be reconstructed in 3D from a radar worn on the head, as long as head motion is measured by an inertial sensor and fused into the model. If true, it would let VR and teleoperation systems track hands without cameras, preserving privacy and allowing users to move freely rather than stand in front of a fixed sensor. The paper reports a mean per-joint position error of 72.73 mm with the fusion, versus 96.42 mm with radar alone, and shows that feeding the estimated poses into a simple classifier recognizes eight interaction gestures at 90.80% accuracy. The authors argue that the estimated hand pose, not raw radar heatmaps, is the more informative representation for downstream tasks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing components are two. First, the dual-decoder Transformer: the Pose Decoder attends to fused radar-plus-IMU embeddings to localize joints spatially, while the Context Decoder, stacked to 30 blocks, carries refined pose features across frames to enforce temporal coherence. Second, the IMU fusion itself: acceleration and angular velocity from a sensor on the radar bracket are temporally patched and concatenated with radar embeddings, so that signal changes caused by head movement are actively compensated rather than treated as noise. A set-based Hungarian matching loss lets the model output a variable number of hands, which is what lets one framework handle both one-handed and two-handed gestures.

What would settle it

Run the same data collection protocol but label ground truth with a motion-capture system or multi-view stereo reconstruction, then recompute the mean per-joint position error; if the error against that ground truth is substantially larger than 72.73 mm, the pose estimates are not as accurate as reported. A simpler check: place the hand at known distances and orientations relative to the radar and verify that the predicted keypoint scale matches the measured millimeter scale.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that egocentric 3D hand pose estimation is achievable with a head-mounted mmWave radar, and that the addition of IMU data is what makes it work under natural head movement. Using a 2-second window of radar range-Doppler and range-angle heatmaps together with synchronized 6-axis IMU samples, a Transformer with two decoders regresses 3D keypoints for zero, one, or two hands, with a set-based Hungarian matching loss. The reported mean per-joint position error is 72.73 mm, a 24.6% improvement over the radar-only baseline, and the pose sequence fed into a ResNet classifier yields 90.80% accuracy on an eight-gesture VR interaction task. The paper also reports that removing the context decoder degrades pose error to about 109 mm, and that a single-hand baseline trained on the same data reaches only 165.19 mm, supporting the claim that the fused architecture is doing real work.

Load-bearing premise

The results assume that hand keypoints automatically extracted from RGB video are accurate enough to serve as metric ground truth and that they can be converted to millimeter coordinates, even though the paper describes no calibration procedure for that conversion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A head-mounted radar plus IMU can serve as a hands-free, privacy-preserving input device for VR and mixed reality, without requiring a fixed sensing zone.
  • Using estimated 3D hand poses as intermediate features outperforms classifying raw mmWave heatmaps directly by 20 to 30 percentage points in the reported setting.
  • IMU fusion is the main source of the pose accuracy gain: removing it raises the mean per-joint position error from 72.73 mm to 96.42 mm.
  • The system runs in real time at 42 ms per 30-frame window on an RTX 3090, so the architecture is deployable in interactive settings.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because ground truth comes from RGB-derived keypoints, the 72.73 mm error is only meaningful relative to that source; a true metric benchmark such as motion capture or multi-view stereo could shift the absolute number substantially.
  • The reported cross-hand gap, with zero-shot accuracy near 25 to 28 percent jumping to 73 to 77 percent after one or two calibration samples, suggests the model learns hand-specific patterns; a hand-symmetric augmentation or canonicalization could close much of this gap without per-user calibration.
  • The pose-as-intermediate-feature recipe could transfer to other downstream tasks the paper lists but does not evaluate, such as skill digitization or robotic teleoperation, where a structured hand state is the natural control variable.
  • Radar privacy cuts both ways: the conclusion notes that the same hardware can recover respiration and heart rate, so limiting range and field of view is not just an engineering detail but a privacy control.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper presents mmEgoHand, a head-mounted sensing system that combines a 60-64 GHz TI IWR6843 mmWave radar with a co-located IMU to estimate 3D hand keypoints for egocentric interaction. The architecture is a Transformer-based encoder-decoder with a pose decoder and a 30-block context decoder, adapted from the Person-in-WiFi 3D multi-person pose framework to output a variable number of hands (0-2) per frame. The reported main results are an MPJPE of 72.73 mm with mmWave+IMU versus 96.42 mm with radar only and 109.92 mm without the context decoder, and a two-stage gesture-recognition pipeline (estimated poses fed into ResNet50, LSTM, GCN, or ViT) that achieves 90.80% accuracy on an eight-gesture VR-interaction dataset collected from 10 subjects in three postures and three scenes. The paper additionally reports few-shot cross-person, cross-posture, and cross-hand evaluations, and states that the 26 GB dataset and code will be released.

Significance. If the pose and gesture results hold, this is a useful contribution to egocentric radio-frequency sensing: it is the first head-mounted mmWave system demonstrated for fine-grained one- and two-hand pose estimation of which I am aware, and the IMU-based compensation of head-motion artifacts is a sensible design choice that is cleanly ablated (96.42 mm to 72.73 mm). The paper has concrete strengths: the repetition-based held-out split is methodologically sound; the context-decoder ablation (109.92 mm to 72.73 mm) and the comparison of two-stage pose-based gesture recognition against one-stage baselines (90.80% versus 60-85%) are informative; the reported inference budget of 42.03 ms for 30 frames supports the real-time claim; and the few-shot section is commendably honest, reporting zero-shot cross-person accuracy near 62-63% and documenting the benefit of one/two-shot calibration. The promised dataset and code releases, if verified, would be a valuable community resource.

major comments (4)
  1. [4.1(3), 4.2(1), Eqs. (6)-(7)] The headline pose result is not interpretable as a metric error as written. The ground-truth keypoints come from the Google MediaPipe Hand Landmark SDK (Section 4.1(3)), whose 3D coordinates are normalized with respect to the image or to hand pose scale and are not expressed in millimeters without an additional scale assumption; the paper never describes such a conversion, mentioning no camera calibration, hand-size measurement, reference object, or use of MediaPipe's metric world landmarks. As a result, the L2 norm in Eq. (6), reported as millimeters in Table 4 (72.73 mm fused, 96.42 mm radar-only), is not well-defined, and the claimed 24.6% improvement inherits the same ambiguity; the coordinate frame of the network output relative to the ground truth is also unspecified. Please disclose the exact conversion and frame alignment, or re-report all pose errors in the native normalized units (for example, normalized per-hand units or PCK-style metrics) and restate the relative improvements in those units.
  2. [4.1(3), Table 3] The sample-filtering rule biases the evaluation toward slow motions. Section 4.1(3) states that MediaPipe frequently fails under rapid hand motion and that samples with more than 40% of frames missing keypoints are discarded, which removes 554 of the 5,760 recorded samples (about 9.6%); because the failure mode is correlated with fast motion, both pose and gesture metrics are computed on an easier, filtered distribution. Please quantify the dependence of the discarded samples on gesture class and posture (in particular whether the two-handed gestures are affected more), and report how the Table 4 numbers change if the filter is relaxed or if missing frames are imputed.
  3. [4.1(3), 4.3(1)] The MediaPipe-derived labels are never validated against any independent reference, so the absolute accuracy of the pose numbers is unverifiable. The paper itself acknowledges that "MediaPipe's 3D keypoints may not offer high-precision tracking" (Section 4.1(3)), yet the same labels serve as both the training target and the evaluation ground truth in Eqs. (6)-(7); label noise is therefore baked into the reported 72.73 mm value, and the paper offers no estimate of its magnitude. I would ask for a small validation subset (for example, a few hundred frames with manual or depth-based annotation, or a known-size hand reference placed in the scene) to establish the label floor, or at minimum a quantitative sensitivity discussion of how label noise propagates into MPJPE.
  4. [4.3(1), Table 4] The mm4Arm comparison is under-specified and appears not to be evaluated on the same test set. Because mm4Arm is closed-source, the authors reimplemented it, but give no protocol details (training epochs, optimizer, input representation, hyperparameters), and the footnote says it is "trained and evaluated solely on single-hand data," whereas the mmEgoHand figures in the same table are computed on the full mixed single- and two-hand test set; the comparison thus conflates algorithmic quality with differences in training data and test data. Please report the reimplementation protocol, evaluate mm4Arm on the same test set used for the mmEgoHand rows (or state clearly why that is infeasible and weaken the claim accordingly), and, if feasible, add a two-stage baseline that consumes MediaPipe ground-truth poses to separate pose-estimation error from gesture-classification error.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Table 4 vs Section 4.3(1)] The context-decoder ablation is reported as 109.02 mm in Table 4 but as 109.92 mm in the text; please reconcile the discrepancy.
  2. [Captions and typos] Please fix typos: "unseern persons" and "unseern hands" in the captions of Tables 6 and 8, "we use apply Doppler FFT" in Section 3.1, and "lying in in scene" in the Table 3 caption.
  3. [4.1(1)] Section 4.1(1) asserts "precise temporal synchronization" among the radar, IMU, and camera, but the clock-alignment mechanism is never described; given that the fusion in Section 3.2 depends on cross-modal temporal alignment, please add a sentence on how the 20 fps, 20 Hz, and 20 fps streams are synchronized.
  4. [3.2, Eq. (5)] The loss formulation should spell out the Hungarian matching cost (for example, L1 or L2 on keypoints, and the penalty for unmatched candidates) and how zero-hand and one-hand sequences are treated during training.
  5. [3.2] The input description is internally inconsistent: a 2-second window at 20 frames per second contains 40 radar frames, but the input is specified as x_mm in R^{30×256×128} with "30 uniform patches"; please clarify whether radar heatmaps are binned or averaged into 30 patches, or whether a 1.5-second window is used.
  6. [Abstract, Table 6] The abstract's "90.8% recognition accuracy" is obtained under the repetition-based split of Table 3, in which all subjects appear in both training and test; since the cross-person zero-shot results in Table 6 are 61.96-63.11%, the abstract should state explicitly that the headline accuracy is subject-dependent.
  7. [Tables 4-5] Tables 4 and 5 report point estimates without variance; given the 12 subject/hand settings in Table 2, reporting the mean and standard deviation across subjects would strengthen the comparison claims.
  8. [Abstract, 4.1(3)] The dataset URL (github.com/WhisperYi/mmVR) should be verified at acceptance, and the paper should report the per-gesture and per-posture sample counts after filtering, since class imbalance could affect the per-class numbers in Table 5.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the pose and gesture results are trained and evaluated on held-out radar/IMU data, and no prediction is defined in terms of its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is supervised rather than circular. The model takes mmWave heatmaps and IMU data as input and outputs 3D hand keypoints; the ground-truth keypoints are produced offline by Google MediaPipe from separate video recordings (Section 4.1(3)), and the test partition is held out (Section 4.1(3), Table 3). At inference, the camera and MediaPipe are not used, so the predicted poses are not equivalent to the labels by construction. The MPJPE in Eq. (6) is an L2 distance between predicted and MediaPipe-derived coordinates; even if the conversion of MediaPipe's normalized landmarks to millimeters is under-specified, that is a measurement-validity concern, not a circularity, because the model is not defined in terms of that metric. The gesture-recognition comparison also does not reduce by construction: the two-stage pipeline uses predicted poses as intermediate features and is evaluated on the same held-out split, while one-stage baselines consume raw sensor data; the accuracy gap is an empirical outcome, not an identity. The paper cites prior work by overlapping authors, notably the Person-in-WiFi 3D decoder [29] adopted for the pose decoder, but that citation provides an architectural starting point rather than justifying the central result, and no uniqueness theorem or forbidden alternative is imported from it. Since no equation, fitted parameter, or self-citation chain forces the reported numbers to equal the inputs, no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The system's claimed performance depends on automatic video-based annotations, the sufficiency of radar heatmaps, and hand-picked preprocessing thresholds; no new physical entity is introduced. The main issue is that the metric coordinate frame is not defined.

free parameters (3)
  • Neural network weights (55.42M parameters) = Learned on the mmEgoHand dataset (5,206 gesture instances)
    All reported MPJPE and accuracy numbers come from fitting these weights to the collected data; no closed-form or externally fixed values are provided.
  • Architecture hyperparameters = 6 encoder blocks, 3 pose decoder layers, 30 context decoder blocks, C=100 queries, K=21 keypoints
    Chosen by hand in Section 3.2; no ablation or sensitivity analysis ties these specific choices to the reported results.
  • Radar range cutoff = 2 meters
    Section 3.1 keeps only returns within 2 m before the FFT heatmaps are formed; this threshold shapes every input and is not varied or justified experimentally.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math FMCW signal processing via range, Doppler, and angle FFT produces heatmaps as described
    Standard radar signal processing (Section 3.1, Equations 1 and 2); accepted as background.
  • domain assumption MediaPipe Hand Landmark SDK produces 3D hand keypoints accurate enough to be used as ground truth
    Section 4.1(3) generates all labels with MediaPipe and manual filtering, without any independent validation against a more precise reference such as VICON or manual annotation.
  • domain assumption MediaPipe 3D keypoints can be expressed in metric millimeters for MPJPE
    Section 4.2(1) reports MPJPE in mm, but the paper does not describe any calibration, scale factor, or coordinate alignment from MediaPipe's default non-metric landmark space.
  • domain assumption The two-meter range cutoff retains hand reflections and removes enough environmental clutter
    Section 3.1 truncates range-Doppler and range-angle heatmaps at 2 m; no sensitivity analysis supports this threshold.
  • domain assumption IMU samples at 20 Hz are synchronized with radar frames and sufficient for head-motion compensation
    Section 3.2 feeds IMU patches of shape 30x2x3 into the network, but the paper does not analyze synchronization error or the effect of IMU sampling rate.
  • domain assumption Range-Doppler and range-angle heatmaps retain enough spatial information to regress 21 3D hand joints
    The entire pose regression relies on these FFT-derived heatmaps as input; the paper provides no oracle or representation-sufficiency experiment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of mmEgoHand: Egocentric Hand Pose Estimation and Gesture Recognition with Head-mounted Millimeter-wave Radar and IMU." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4N56KALA

@misc{pith2026250113805,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: mmEgoHand: Egocentric Hand Pose Estimation and Gesture Recognition with Head-mounted Millimeter-wave Radar and IMU},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4N56KALA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13805}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advancements in millimeter-wave (mmWave) radar have demonstrated its potential for human action recognition and pose estimation, offering privacy-preserving advantages over conventional cameras while maintaining occlusion robustness, with promising applications in human-computer interaction and wellness care. However, existing mmWave systems typically employ fixed-position configurations, restricting user mobility to predefined zones and limiting practical deployment scenarios. We introduce mmEgoHand, a head-mounted egocentric system for hand pose estimation to support applications such as gesture recognition, VR interaction, skill digitization and assessment, and robotic teleoperation. mmEgoHand synergistically integrates mmWave radar with inertial measurement units (IMUs) to enable dynamic perception. The IMUs actively compensate for radar interference induced by head movements, while our novel end-to-end Transformer architecture simultaneously estimates 3D hand keypoint coordinates through multi-modal sensor fusion. This dual-modality framework achieves spatial-temporal alignment of mmWave heatmaps with IMUs, overcoming viewpoint instability inherent in egocentric sensing scenarios. We further demonstrate that intermediate hand pose representations substantially improve performance in downstream task, e.g., VR gesture recognition. Extensive evaluations with 10 subjects performing 8 gestures across 3 distinct postures -- standing, sitting, lying -- achieve 90.8% recognition accuracy, outperforming state-of-the-art solutions by a large margin. Dataset and code are available at https://github.com/WhisperYi/mmVR.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13805 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We present mmEgoHand, an interaction gesture recognition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Millimeter-wave radar signal processing involves several Fourier [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. mmEgoHand takes the head-mounted millimeter-wave radar signals and IMU data to generate hand keypoints. The camera is used solely [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: mmEgoHand deep network consists of four main novel compo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Hardware setup. The data collection hardware consists of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: mmEgoHand hand pose estimation examples, showing click, swipe downward, zoom in, and swipe leftward, respectively. (Images here are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The confusion matrix of gesture recognition. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Gesture recognition accuracy in leave-one-person-out setting. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Slowfast networks for video recognition,

    C. Feichtenhofer, H. Fan, J. Malik, and K. He, “Slowfast networks for video recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2019, pp. 6202–6211

    2019

  2. [2]

    Realtime multi-person 2d pose estimation using part affinity fields,

    Z. Cao, T. Simon, S.-E. Wei, and Y. Sheikh, “Realtime multi-person 2d pose estimation using part affinity fields,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Person-in- wifi: Fine-grained person perception using wifi,

    F. Wang, S. Zhou, S. Panev, J. Han, and D. Huang, “Person-in- wifi: Fine-grained person perception using wifi,” in IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2019, pp. 5452–5461

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Through-wall human pose estimation using radio signals,

    M. Zhao, T. Li, M. Abu Alsheikh, Y. Tian, H. Zhao, A. Torralba, and D. Katabi, “Through-wall human pose estimation using radio signals,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2018, pp. 7356–7365

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    A survey on wi-fi sensing generalizability: Taxonomy, techniques, datasets, and future research prospects,

    F. Wang, T. Zhang, B. Zhao, L. Xing, T. Wang, H. Ding, and T. X. Han, “A survey on wi-fi sensing generalizability: Taxonomy, techniques, datasets, and future research prospects,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08008, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Cross-domain wifi sensing with channel state information: A survey,

    C. Chen, G. Zhou, and Y. Lin, “Cross-domain wifi sensing with channel state information: A survey,” ACM Computing Surveys , vol. 55, no. 11, pp. 1–37, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Real-time arm gesture recognition in smart home scenarios via millimeter wave sensing,

    H. Liu, Y. Wang, A. Zhou, H. He, W. Wang, K. Wang, P . Pan, Y. Lu, L. Liu, and H. Ma, “Real-time arm gesture recognition in smart home scenarios via millimeter wave sensing,” ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous T echnologies, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 1–28, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    m-activity: Accurate and real-time human activity recognition via millimeter wave radar,

    Y. Wang, H. Liu, K. Cui, A. Zhou, W. Li, and H. Ma, “m-activity: Accurate and real-time human activity recognition via millimeter wave radar,” in IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing . IEEE, 2021, pp. 8298–8302

    work page 2021

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    mtranssee: Enabling environment-independent mmwave sensing based gesture recognition via transfer learning,

    H. Liu, K. Cui, K. Hu, Y. Wang, A. Zhou, L. Liu, and H. Ma, “mtranssee: Enabling environment-independent mmwave sensing based gesture recognition via transfer learning,” ACM on Interac- tive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous T echnologies , vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–28, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    mm- fit: Low-effort personalized fitness monitoring using millimeter wave,

    Y. Xie, R. Jiang, X. Guo, Y. Wang, J. Cheng, and Y. Chen, “mm- fit: Low-effort personalized fitness monitoring using millimeter wave,” in International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Real-time continuous activity recognition with a commer- cial mmwave radar,

    Y. Liu, J. Zhang, Y. Chen, W. Wang, S. Yang, X. Na, Y. Sun, and Y. He, “Real-time continuous activity recognition with a commer- cial mmwave radar,” IEEE T ransactions on Mobile Computing, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Midas++: generating training data of mmwave radars from videos for privacy-preserving human sensing with mobility,

    K. Deng, D. Zhao, Z. Zhang, S. Wang, W. Zheng, and H. Ma, “Midas++: generating training data of mmwave radars from videos for privacy-preserving human sensing with mobility,”IEEE T ransactions on Mobile Computing , vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 6650–6666, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Federated multi-source domain adaptation for mmwave-based human activity recognition,

    C. Zhao, G. Fang, H. Ding, X. Liu, F. Wang, G. Wang, K. Zhao, Z. Wang, and W. Xi, “Federated multi-source domain adaptation for mmwave-based human activity recognition,” IEEE T ransactions on Mobile Computing , 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    mmmesh: Towards 3d real-time dynamic human mesh construc- tion using millimeter-wave,

    H. Xue, Y. Ju, C. Miao, Y. Wang, S. Wang, A. Zhang, and L. Su, “mmmesh: Towards 3d real-time dynamic human mesh construc- tion using millimeter-wave,” in Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services , 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Synthesized millimeter-waves for human motion sensing,

    X. Zhang, Z. Li, and J. Zhang, “Synthesized millimeter-waves for human motion sensing,” in 20th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems , 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Towards generalized mmwave-based human pose estimation through signal augmentation,

    H. Xue, Q. Cao, C. Miao, Y. Ju, H. Hu, A. Zhang, and L. Su, “Towards generalized mmwave-based human pose estimation through signal augmentation,” in Proceedings of the 29th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking , 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    M4esh: mmwave-based 3d human mesh construction for multi- ple subjects,

    H. Xue, Q. Cao, Y. Ju, H. Hu, H. Wang, A. Zhang, and L. Su, “M4esh: mmwave-based 3d human mesh construction for multi- ple subjects,” in 20th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    mm- body benchmark: 3d body reconstruction dataset and analysis for millimeter wave radar,

    A. Chen, X. Wang, S. Zhu, Y. Li, J. Chen, and Q. Ye, “mm- body benchmark: 3d body reconstruction dataset and analysis for millimeter wave radar,” in ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    m3track: mmwave-based multi-user 3d posture tracking,

    H. Kong, X. Xu, J. Yu, Q. Chen, C. Ma, Y. Chen, Y.-C. Chen, and L. Kong, “m3track: mmwave-based multi-user 3d posture tracking,” in Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications and Services , 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Hupr: A benchmark for human pose estimation using millimeter wave radar,

    S.-P . Lee, N. P . Kini, W.-H. Peng, C.-W. Ma, and J.-N. Hwang, “Hupr: A benchmark for human pose estimation using millimeter wave radar,” in IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Mi-mesh: 3d human mesh construction by fusing image and millimeter wave,

    H. Ding, Z. Chen, C. Zhao, F. Wang, G. Wang, W. Xi, and J. Zhao, “Mi-mesh: 3d human mesh construction by fusing image and millimeter wave,” Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous T echnologies, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–24, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Super: Seated upper body pose estimation using mmwave radars,

    B. Zhang, Z. Zhou, B. Jiang, and R. Zheng, “Super: Seated upper body pose estimation using mmwave radars,” in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Internet-of-Things Design and Implementation, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Egocentric human pose estimation using head-mounted mmwave radar,

    W. Li, R. Liu, S. Wang, D. Cao, and W. Jiang, “Egocentric human pose estimation using head-mounted mmwave radar,” in Pro- ceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Argus: Multi-view egocentric human mesh reconstruc- tion based on stripped-down wearable mmwave add-on,

    D. Duan, S. Lyu, M. Yuan, H. Xue, T. Li, W. Xu, K. Wu, and G. Xing, “Argus: Multi-view egocentric human mesh reconstruc- tion based on stripped-down wearable mmwave add-on,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.00419, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    mmhand: 3d hand pose estimation using millimeter-wave radar,

    A. Dong, D. Zhang, Y. Huang, and C. Su, “mmhand: 3d hand pose estimation using millimeter-wave radar,” in International Conference on Image, Signal Processing, and Pattern Recognition , vol. 13180. SPIE, 2024, pp. 1474–1479

    2024

  18. [26]

    mmhand: 3d hand pose estimation leveraging mmwave signals,

    H. Kong, H. Lyu, J. Yu, L. Kong, J. Yang, Y. Ren, H. Liu, and Y.-C. Chen, “mmhand: 3d hand pose estimation leveraging mmwave signals,” in International Conference on Distributed Computing Sys- tems. IEEE, 2024, pp. 1062–1073

    2024

  19. [27]

    Leveraging the properties of mmwave signals for 3d finger motion tracking for in- teractive iot applications,

    Y. Liu, S. Zhang, M. Gowda, and S. Nelakuditi, “Leveraging the properties of mmwave signals for 3d finger motion tracking for in- teractive iot applications,” Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems , vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1–28, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    [Online]

    Vicon, “Vicon,” 2023, accessed: 2024-07-14. [Online]. Available: https://www.vicon.com

    2023

  21. [29]

    Person-in- wifi 3d: End-to-end multi-person 3d pose estimation with wi-fi,

    K. Yan, F. Wang, B. Qian, H. Ding, J. Han, and X. Wei, “Person-in- wifi 3d: End-to-end multi-person 3d pose estimation with wi-fi,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 969–978

    2024

  22. [30]

    The hungarian method for the assignment prob- lem,

    H. W. Kuhn, “The hungarian method for the assignment prob- lem,” Naval Research Logistics Quarterly , vol. 2, no. 1-2, pp. 83–97, 1955

    1955

  23. [31]

    mmges- ture: Semi-supervised gesture recognition system using mmwave radar,

    B. Yan, P . Wang, L. Du, X. Chen, Z. Fang, and Y. Wu, “mmges- ture: Semi-supervised gesture recognition system using mmwave radar,” Expert Systems with Applications , vol. 213, p. 119042, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Trihorn-net: a model for accurate depth-based 3d hand pose estimation,

    M. Rezaei, R. Rastgoo, and V . Athitsos, “Trihorn-net: a model for accurate depth-based 3d hand pose estimation,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 223, p. 119922, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Differentiable spatial regression: A novel method for 3d hand pose estimation,

    X. Zhang and F. Zhang, “Differentiable spatial regression: A novel method for 3d hand pose estimation,” IEEE T ransactions on Multi- media, vol. 24, pp. 166–176, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Point-to-point regression pointnet for 3d hand pose estimation,

    L. Ge, Z. Ren, and J. Yuan, “Point-to-point regression pointnet for 3d hand pose estimation,” in European conference on computer vision, 2018, pp. 475–491

    2018

  27. [35]

    Learning to estimate 3d hand pose from single rgb images,

    C. Zimmermann and T. Brox, “Learning to estimate 3d hand pose from single rgb images,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision , 2017, pp. 4903–4911

    2017

  28. [36]

    Moddrop: adaptive multi-modal gesture recognition,

    N. Neverova, C. Wolf, G. Taylor, and F. Nebout, “Moddrop: adaptive multi-modal gesture recognition,” IEEE T ransactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 1692– 1706, 2015

    2015

  29. [37]

    Adaptive cross-fusion learning for multi-modal gesture recognition,

    B. Zhou, J. Wan, Y. Liang, and G. Guo, “Adaptive cross-fusion learning for multi-modal gesture recognition,” Virtual Reality & Intelligent Hardware, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 235–247, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Tmmf: Temporal multi-modal fusion for single-stage continuous gesture recognition,

    H. Gammulle, S. Denman, S. Sridharan, and C. Fookes, “Tmmf: Temporal multi-modal fusion for single-stage continuous gesture recognition,” IEEE T ransactions on Image Processing , vol. 30, pp. 7689–7701, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Multi-subject 3d human mesh construction using commodity wifi,

    Y. Wang, Y. Ren, and J. Yang, “Multi-subject 3d human mesh construction using commodity wifi,” Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous T echnologies, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–25, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Pantomime: Mid- air gesture recognition with sparse millimeter-wave radar point clouds,

    S. Palipana, D. Salami, L. A. Leiva, and S. Sigg, “Pantomime: Mid- air gesture recognition with sparse millimeter-wave radar point clouds,” Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous T echnologies, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–27, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    mmasl: Environment-independent asl JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 00, NO. 0, JANUARY 2025 11 gesture recognition using 60 ghz millimeter-wave signals,

    P . S. Santhalingam, A. A. Hosain, D. Zhang, P . Pathak, H. Rang- wala, and R. Kushalnagar, “mmasl: Environment-independent asl JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 00, NO. 0, JANUARY 2025 11 gesture recognition using 60 ghz millimeter-wave signals,” Pro- ceedings of the ACM on ...

    2025

  34. [42]

    3d tracking via body radio reflections,

    F. Adib, Z. Kabelac, D. Katabi, and R. C. Miller, “3d tracking via body radio reflections,” in 11th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation , 2014, pp. 317–329

    2014

  35. [43]

    The fundamentals of millimeter wave sensors,

    C. Iovescu and S. Rao, “The fundamentals of millimeter wave sensors,” T exas Instruments, pp. 1–8, 2017

    2017

  36. [44]

    Immfusion: Robust mmwave-rgb fusion for 3d human body reconstruction in all weather conditions,

    A. Chen, X. Wang, K. Shi, S. Zhu, B. Fang, Y. Chen, J. Chen, Y. Huo, and Q. Ye, “Immfusion: Robust mmwave-rgb fusion for 3d human body reconstruction in all weather conditions,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation . IEEE, 2023, pp. 2752–2758

    2023

  37. [45]

    Sensorllm: Aligning large language models with motion sensors for human activity recognition,

    Z. Li, S. Deldari, L. Chen, H. Xue, and F. D. Salim, “Sensorllm: Aligning large language models with motion sensors for human activity recognition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10624 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  39. [47]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimiza- tion,

    D. P . Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimiza- tion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  41. [49]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly et al. , “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 , 2020

    2010 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Soli: Ubiquitous gesture sens- ing with millimeter wave radar,

    J. Lien, N. Gillian, M. E. Karagozler, P . Amihood, C. Schwesig, E. Olson, H. Raja, and I. Poupyrev, “Soli: Ubiquitous gesture sens- ing with millimeter wave radar,” ACM T ransactions on Graphics , vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 1–19, 2016

    2016

  43. [51]

    Monitoring vital signs using millimeter wave,

    Z. Yang, P . H. Pathak, Y. Zeng, X. Liran, and P . Mohapatra, “Monitoring vital signs using millimeter wave,” in Proceedings of the ACM International Symposium on Mobile ad hoc Networking and Computing, 2016, pp. 211–220

    2016

  44. [52]

    Remote monitoring of human vital signs using mm-wave fmcw radar,

    M. Alizadeh, G. Shaker, J. C. M. De Almeida, P . P . Morita, and S. Safavi-Naeini, “Remote monitoring of human vital signs using mm-wave fmcw radar,” IEEE Access , vol. 7, pp. 54 958–54 968, 2019

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.