Table 2.

Performance comparison on UTD-MHAD dataset (mean ± std, 5 random seeds).

Method	Accuracy (%)	Weighted F1 (%)	Cohen’s d (vs Ours)	p-value (vs Ours)
HD-GCN	89.2 ± 0.45	88.5 ± 0.48	9.87 (Large)	< 0.001
InfoGCN	90.1 ± 0.39	89.3 ± 0.42	9.25 (Large)	< 0.001
SA-TDGFormer	91.3 ± 0.47	90.7 ± 0.51	5.03 (Large)	< 0.01
SkeletonMVQVAE	83.5 ± 0.68	82.1 ± 0.72	15.62 (Large)	< 0.001
TAHAR	76.8 ± 0.89	75.9 ± 0.93	21.34 (Large)	< 0.001
MART-GCN	88.7 ± 0.52	87.9 ± 0.55	10.11 (Large)	< 0.001
TSGCNeXt	90.5 ± 0.41	89.8 ± 0.44	7.86 (Large)	< 0.001
ARCN	90.9 ± 0.43	90.0 ± 0.46	6.92 (Large)	< 0.001
SAM-Net	91.5 ± 0.38	90.8 ± 0.40	5.78 (Large)	< 0.01
Jiang et al.	92.1 ± 0.36	91.3 ± 0.39	4.15 (Large)	< 0.05
Ours (MAGNet)	93.7 ± 0.41	93.2 ± 0.45	–	–

Significance testing (p-value: two-tailed t-test vs Ours) and effect size (Cohen’s d vs Ours) are included.