Comparative Analysis of Metaheuristic Feature Selection in SVM-Based Human Activity Recognition

Abstract

Smartphone-based human activity recognition (HAR) commonly relies on large sets of engineered time- and frequency-domain variables. Although these representations capture complementary motion patterns, redundant variables may increase model cost without resolving ambiguity between similar activities. This study compared a genetic algorithm (GA), particle swarm optimization (PSO), and grey wolf optimization (GWO) as wrapper-based feature selectors for a radial basis function support vector machine (SVM) on the UCI HAR dataset. The original 7,352/2,947 training-test split and a common SVM configuration were retained. Each optimizer searched a 561-bit feature mask with a population of 10 for 10 generations or iterations, using an objective that prioritized predictive accuracy while penalizing subset size. Performance was assessed by held-out accuracy, weighted F1, selected features, confusion patterns, convergence, and total runtime. The baseline SVM achieved 0.9308 accuracy and 0.9304 weighted F1 with all 561 features. GA+SVM produced the strongest result: 0.9508 accuracy, 0.9506 weighted F1, 300 features, and 217.99 s. This reduced dimensionality by 46.52% and test errors from 204 to 145. GWO+SVM reached 0.9471 accuracy with 341 features and 295.12 s. PSO+SVM selected the smallest subset (284 features; 49.38% reduction), but its 0.9355 accuracy and 489.68 s runtime yielded a weaker trade-off. Errors remained concentrated in upstairs/downstairs and sitting/standing/laying distinctions. Under the tested search budget, GA+SVM offered the best observed balance between predictive performance, compactness, and optimization cost. Because the stochastic algorithms were not evaluated over repeated independent runs, the ranking should be interpreted as configuration-specific rather than universal.

Keywords

• Human activity recognition
• Feature selection
• Support vector machine
• Genetic algorithm
• Particle swarm optimization
• Grey wolf optimization

Ethical Statement

Ethics committee approval was not required for this study because there was no study on animals or humans.

References

1. Agrawal, P., Abutarboush, H. F., Ganesh, T., & Mohamed, A. W. (2021). Metaheuristic algorithms on feature selection: A survey of one decade of research (2009–2019). IEEE Access, 9, 26766–26791. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3056407
2. Akinola, O. O., Ezugwu, A. E., Agushaka, J. O., Zitar, R. A., & Abualigah, L. (2022). Multiclass feature selection with metaheuristic optimization algorithms: A review. Neural Computing and Applications, 34(22), 19751–19790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-022-07705-4
3. Al-Tashi, Q., Kadir, S. J. A., Rais, H. M., Mirjalili, S., & Alhussian, H. (2019). Binary optimization using hybrid grey wolf optimization for feature selection. IEEE Access, 7, 39496–39508. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2906757
4. Al-Tashi, Q., Abdulkadir, S. J., Rais, H. M., Mirjalili, S., Alhussian, H., Ragab, M. G., & Alqushaibi, A. (2020). Binary multi-objective grey wolf optimizer for feature selection in classification. IEEE Access, 8, 106247–106263. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3000040
5. Anguita, D., Ghio, A., Oneto, L., Parra, X., & Reyes-Ortiz, J. L. (2013, April 24–26). A public domain dataset for human activity recognition using smartphones [Paper presentation]. 21st European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks, Computational Intelligence and Machine Learning (ESANN 2013), Bruges, Belgium. https://www.esann.org/sites/default/files/proceedings/legacy/es2013-84.pdf
6. Babatunde, O. H., Armstrong, L., Leng, J., & Diepeveen, D. (2014). A genetic algorithm-based feature selection. International Journal of Electronics Communication and Computer Engineering, 5(4), 899–905. https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ecuworkspost2013/653/
7. Budak, H. (2018). Özellik seçim yöntemleri ve yeni bir yaklaşım. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22(1), 21–31. https://izlik.org/JA45SW33BN
8. Cervantes, J., Garcia-Lamont, F., Rodríguez-Mazahua, L., & Lopez, A. (2020). A comprehensive survey on support vector machine classification: Applications, challenges and trends. Neurocomputing, 408, 189–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2019.10.118

9. Chuang, L. Y., Chang, H. W., Tu, C. J., & Yang, C. H. (2008). Improved binary PSO for feature selection using gene expression data. Computational Biology and Chemistry, 32(1), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2007.09.005
10. Clarkson, B. P. (2002). Life patterns: Structure from wearable sensors (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). DSpace@MIT. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/8030
11. Dentamaro, V., Gattulli, V., Impedovo, D., & Manca, F. (2024). Human activity recognition with smartphone-integrated sensors: A survey. Expert Systems with Applications, 246, Article 123143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2024.123143
12. Emary, E., Zawbaa, H. M., & Hassanien, A. E. (2016). Binary grey wolf optimization approaches for feature selection. Neurocomputing, 172, 371–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2015.06.083
13. Garip, Z., Çimen, M. E., & Boz, A. F. (2021). Meta-sezgisel algoritmalar kullanarak güneş pili modellerinin parametre çıkarımında karşılaştırmalı performans analizi. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 36(2), 1133–1144. https://doi.org/10.17341/gazimmfd.586269
14. Gazioğlu, E. (2024). Dinamik özellik seçimi problemlerinde meta-sezgisel yaklaşımlar. In Bilgisayar bilimleri ve mühendisliğinde öncü ve yenilikçi çalışmalar (pp. 46–61). All Sciences Academy Yayınları. https://www.allsciencesacademy.com/_files/ugd/13252f_13a3215bdc3241a19c52faa5bd2766ea.pdf
15. Gold, C., & Sollich, P. (2003). Model selection for support vector machine classification. Neurocomputing, 55(1–2), 221–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-2312(03)00375-8
16. Hussein, F., Kharma, N., & Ward, R. (2001). Genetic algorithms for feature selection and weighting: A review and study. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR 2001), Seattle, WA, USA. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDAR.2001.953980
17. Kwapisz, J. R., Weiss, G. M., & Moore, S. A. (2011). Activity recognition using cell phone accelerometers. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 12(2), 74–82. https://doi.org/10.1145/1964897.1964918
18. Oh, I. S., Lee, J. S., & Moon, B. R. (2004). Hybrid genetic algorithms for feature selection. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 26(11), 1424–1437. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2004.105
19. Tang, J., Alelyani, S., & Liu, H. (2014). Feature selection for classification: A review. In C. C. Aggarwal (Ed.), Data classification: Algorithms and applications (pp. 37–64). CRC Press.
20. Tokgöz, N., & Kocaoğlu, S. (2026). An IMU-based dataset of falls, activities of daily living, and prayer movements (AybuFall). BMC Research Notes, 19, Article 78. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-026-07679-9
21. Tonguç, G. (2024). Optimizasyon algoritmalarına genel bakış: Klasik ve modern yöntemler. Kuantum Teknolojileri ve Enformatik Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(3), 105–113. https://doi.org/10.70447/ktve.2561
22. Vurgun, Y., & Kıran, M. S. (2024). İnsan aktivite tanıması için yeni bir veri kümesi ve derin öğrenme modelleri ile sınıflandırılması. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 40(1), 653–672. https://doi.org/10.17341/gazimmfd.1325926
23. Xue, B., Zhang, M., & Browne, W. N. (2013). Particle swarm optimization for feature selection in classification: A multi-objective approach. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 43(6), 1656–1671. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCB.2012.2227469
24. Xue, B., Zhang, M., Browne, W. N., & Yao, X. (2016). A survey on evolutionary computation approaches to feature selection. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 20(4), 606–626. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2015.2504420