Table 4.

Weizmann comparison to other approaches.

Catagory		# Actions	Evaluation	fps	Temporal range
					Sub-sequence		Full sequence
					Recall	# Frames	Recall
Key pose	Weinland and Boyer, 2008	10	LOSO	–	–	–	93.6
	Baysal et al., 2010	9	LOO	–	–	–	92.6
	Cheema et al., 2011	9	LOO	–	–	–	91.6
	Chaaraoui et al., 2013	9	LOSO	124	–	–	92.8
	Liu et al., 2013	10	LOSO	–	–	–	100
Single frame	Niebles and Fei-Fei, 2007	9	LOSO	–	55	1	72.8
	Fathi and Mori, 2008	10	LOO	0.25–5	99.9	1	100
	Schindler and van Gool, 2008	9	LOSO	–	93.5	1	100
	Hoai et al., 2011	10	LOSO	–	87.7	1	–
Full sequence	Jhuang et al., 2007	9	–	0.83	–	–	98.8
	Klaser et al., 2008	10	LOSO	–	–	–	84.3
	Grundmann et al., 2008	9	LOAO	–	–	–	94.6
	Ikizler and Duygulu, 2009	9	LOO	–	–	–	100
	Bregonzio et al., 2009	10	LOSO	–	–	–	96.7
	Sun and Liu, 2012	10	LOO	–	–	–	97.8
	Beaudry et al., 2016	10	LOO	51.63	–	–	100
	Presented approach	10	LOSO	1, 000	82.2	1	92.2

Bold values indicate maximum recall/fps values per column.