Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Benchmarking Classical, Deep, and Generative Models for Human Activity Recognition

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2501.08471 v1 pith:AQBFYGZX submitted 2025-01-14 cs.CV cs.AI

classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords modelsdatasetsclassicaldeeplearningactivityberkeleycomparison
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Human Activity Recognition (HAR) has gained significant importance with the growing use of sensor-equipped devices and large datasets. This paper evaluates the performance of three categories of models : classical machine learning, deep learning architectures, and Restricted Boltzmann Machines (RBMs) using five key benchmark datasets of HAR (UCI-HAR, OPPORTUNITY, PAMAP2, WISDM, and Berkeley MHAD). We assess various models, including Decision Trees, Random Forests, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), and Deep Belief Networks (DBNs), using metrics such as accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score for a comprehensive comparison. The results show that CNN models offer superior performance across all datasets, especially on the Berkeley MHAD. Classical models like Random Forest do well on smaller datasets but face challenges with larger, more complex data. RBM-based models also show notable potential, particularly for feature learning. This paper offers a detailed comparison to help researchers choose the most suitable model for HAR tasks.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools