Benchmarking Classical, Deep, and Generative Models for Human Activity Recognition
Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:AQBFYGZXrecord.jsonopen to challenge →
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.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
WHAR Arena: Benchmarking the State of the Art in Efficient Wearable Human Activity Recognition
A large-scale benchmark of 17 WHAR models across 30 datasets finds predictive performance has plateaued while efficiency favors compact neural models and random forests on the Pareto frontier.
-
BenchHAR: Benchmarking Self-Supervised Learning for Generalizable Sensor-based Activity Recognition
BenchHAR finds that hybrid reconstruction-plus-contrastive SSL with CNN encoders generalizes best for sensor HAR but overall performance on unseen distributions remains unsatisfactory.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.