Organizations: School of Electronic and Information Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China. · School of Automation Science and Electrical Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China. · School of Space and Earth Sciences, Beihang University, Beijing, China. · Jiangxi Research Institute, Beihang University, Nanchang, China.
Consumer smart devices observe the same human motion from different body locations, yet existing inertial-localization benchmarks rarely provide synchronized heterogeneous wearables with device-specific motion ground truth. We present CoWear, a dataset and reference framework for collaborative inertial localization using a smartphone, smartwatch, and smart glasses. The dataset contains over 30 participants, over 300 walking sessions, and more than 30 hours and 100 km of aggregate device trajectories, with each device individually tracked by motion capture. To enable collaboration across distinct body motions, we train role-specific estimators to predict the displacement of a common reference device over synchronized temporal windows. Their predictions are transformed to the world frame using gyroscope integration and fused according to learned uncertainty. Experiments using phone, glasses, and watch as reference targets show that multi-device fusion consistently improves both displacement and trajectory rollout accuracy over individual-device estimation. CoWear provides a dataset and reproducible baseline for studying collaborative inertial localization across heterogeneous consumer wearables.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Representative device–motion mismatch in RIDI. (a) Ground-truth and NIO trajectories. (b) Motion and device headings. (c) Heading difference. The purple boxes highlight a short interval where device motion deviates sharply from the underlying locomotion.
Fig. 2: Overview of the CoWear dataset construction pipeline. Three heterogeneous wearables are recorded simultaneously and independently tracked by motion capture. Data from multiple participants are temporally aligned, reorganized, and curated into synchronized analysis-ready sessions. Dataset scale is reported using aggregate device trajectories.
Dataset
IMU setup
Duration
Distance
Reference source
Supervision target
Joint streams
RIDI [ 4 ]
1 phone, 4 placements
2.5 h
–
Tango phone
Body trajectory
×
OxIOD [ 12 , 20 ]
1 phone, 4 placements
14.7 h
42.5 km
MoCap / Tango
Phone / body
×
RoNIN [ 2 ]
1 free-carried phone
42.7 h
–
Tracking phone
Body trajectory
×
TLIO [ 3 ]
Headset IMU–camera
–
–
Headset VIO
Headset 6-DoF
×
DIP-IMU [ 17 ]
17 body IMUs
–
–
Optical MoCap
Full-body pose
✓ Homogeneous
HelmetPoser [ 19 ]
Helmet-mounted IMUs
–
–
VICON MoCap
Head 6-DoF
✓ Homogeneous
TABLE I: Comparison with representative inertial-motion datasets.
Fig. 3: Collaborative localization framework. Each wearable independently estimates the same target displacement and its uncertainty before fusion.
Fig. 4: Representative benchmark trajectories for watch, phone, and glasses sequences. Dashed lines denote ground truth and solid lines denote predictions; per-session ATE is reported in each panel.
Single Device
Late Fusion
Method
Phone
Glasses
Watch
Fusion
PDR
3.484 / 3.949
2.991 / 3.295
7.011 / 9.486
3.653 / 4.211
RIDI [ 4 ]
1.570 / 1.825
1.710 / 2.016
1.840 / 2.236
1.329 / 1.532
RoNIN [ 2 ]
1.720 / 2.361
2.997 / 3.234
2.137 / 2.668
1.837 / 2.096
TLIO [ 3 ]
1.256 / 1.516
1.543 / 1.647
1.553 / 1.968
1.168 / 1.340
CoWear LSTM
1.389 / 1.686
1.868 / 1.983
1.689 / 1.911
1.313 / 1.441
TABLE II: Trajectory ATE on the test sessions (m, median / mean; lower is better).
Fig. 5: Representative common-target trajectories from individual wearable observations and information fusion. Fusion yields lower per-session ATE than each individual estimate in both examples.
Target
Observation
Disp. RMSE
ATE Med.
ATE Mean
Phone
Phone
0.196
1.440
1.708
Glasses
0.209
1.934
2.050
Watch
0.210
1.671
2.004
Information fusion
0.131
1.173
1.335
Glasses
Phone
0.186
1.408
1.662
Glasses
0.195
1.868
1.983
TABLE III: Common-target localization across wearable roles (m, lower is better).
Phone ∗
Glasses ∗
Watch ∗
Fusion strategy
Uniform
1.359 / 1.429
1.294 / 1.390
1.304 / 1.433
Fixed weight
1.308 / 1.411
1.195 / 1.376
1.252 / 1.424
Information
1.173 / 1.335
1.162 / 1.326
1.164 / 1.368
Watch–phone relation
Same hand ( 27 )
1.218 / 1.410
1.389 / 1.467
1.340 / 1.558
TABLE IV: Collaborative localization analysis (ATE in m, median / mean; lower is better).
The modern-day surge in popularity of wearable devices poses a fundamentally unique motion capture problem: reconstructing full-body movement from any set of sensing hardware worn at a given moment. Yet, most research efforts assume fixed sensor configurations (e.g. IMU suits or HMD-centric rigs) and cannot generalize across them. In contrast, we argue that motion capture should prioritize unobtrusive and lightweight devices such as smartphones, smartwatches, smart glasses, and smart insoles, and study the interplay between them. To this end, we make three contributions. First, we present a large-scale multi-modal dataset synchronizing these consumer-grade sensors with ground-truth 3D motion, spanning 50 diverse activities including everyday tasks, sports, and social interactions. Second, we propose WHIP, a baseline generative model that reconstructs motion from arbitrary subsets of available sensors, robustly handling missing modalities and producing physically plausible motions. Third, we conduct a systematic study of sensor complementarity, quantifying how different modalities complement one another. Code and dataset are available at https://vcai.mpi-inf.mpg.de/projects/WHIP/
Andrea Boscolo Camiletto, Rishabh Dabral, Eduardo Alvarado +3
Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarland Informatics Campus, Germany · Saarbrücken Research Center for Visual Computing, Interaction and AI, Germany · Google, Switzerland
Inertial odometry (IO) using only Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) provides a lightweight solution for human motion tracking in augmented reality (AR) and wearable devices. Recent learning-based IO methods have improved the generalizability of inertial localization through large-scale pretraining on human motion datasets. However, these approaches remain prone to drift and noise because they do not explicitly capture human motion dynamics, especially on daily activity datasets such as Nymeria. In this work, we propose to ground inertial odometry in human kinematics through a learned IMU-inferred pose prior, which promotes physically consistent motion constraints. We integrate this pose prior into existing IO architectures and reduce positional drift by up to 36% on the challenging Nymeria dataset, which is 5x larger than datasets used in prior work. We further improve long-term performance with a sensor-fusion framework that incorporates auxiliary signals from lightweight sensors already available on commercial AR glasses, including magnetometers, barometers, and secondary IMUs. With this fusion strategy, positional drift is reduced by up to 42%, improving robustness and generalization across diverse motion conditions. Together, our results introduce a new paradigm for inertial and lightweight odometry by unifying human motion kinematics with multimodal sensing, setting a new benchmark for accurate and robust camera-less human tracking. Our website is available at https://spice-lab.org/projects/MARIO/.
Sparse inertial pose estimation promises camera-free motion capture from consumer devices, but consumer sensors are unreliable: firmware-fused orientations are biased, mounting varies between sessions, and streams drift or drop out. On a new 35-take single-subject benchmark pairing an earbud head inertial measurement unit (IMU) with two smart-insole foot IMUs (SAM-3D-Body pseudo-ground-truth labels), we show the reliability problem is channel-level: a channel ablation isolates foot acceleration as the most informative input (66.6 mm vs. 79.0 mm head-only) and the firmware-fused foot orientation as the liability that destroys the gain. We therefore let the model learn how much to trust each channel of each stream: one temporal gate per stream per channel block, trained with an auxiliary reliability objective on synthetically corrupted pretraining data. The channel-gated model is the most accurate of our learned fusion arms on clean data (69.4 mm vs. 83.7 static, 86.6 ungated) and under every simulated fault (bias in training; drift, dropout eval-only); its gates suppress the natively biased foot-orientation channels on clean real data without test-time supervision and flag dropout bursts at 0.92-0.999 AUROC. Two contrasts: dropping a channel known a priori to fail is flat across foot faults but collapses when an unanticipated stream fails (head dropout: 92.9 vs. 79.3 mm); and a fine-tuned HMD-Poser is more accurate on clean data (64.4 mm) and nominally under drift, with no significant paired difference under bias or dropout, but a larger worst-case degradation from clean (+16.1 vs. +3.5 mm, single seed). Learning to gate reliability instead of sensor count is the lever for deployable sparse inertial capture. Code is available at https://github.com/ZhilinGuo/reliability-gated-imu-fusion.
Zhilin Guo, Boqiao Zhang, Oszkár Urbán +8
University of Cambridge · Chalmers University of Technology