. 2020 Jun 19;20(12):3463. doi: 10.3390/s20123463

Table 4.

Comparison of pooling techniques: leave-one-subject-out cross validation.

Composite Activity Recognition Results
Pooling Technique	Average F1	Accuracy	Weighted F1
$R a n k P o o l i n g$	55.61	57.87	57.37
$R P_{F w d R e v}$	50.59	53.39	51.89
$R P_{H e l l i n g e r}$	59.18	61.41	60.86
$R P_{H e l l i n g e r_F w d R e v}$	57.36	60.28	59.09
$R P_{P o w e r}$	43.77	46.70	44.91
$R P_{P o w e r_F w d R e v}$	46.78	51.04	48.67
$R P_{H e l l i n g e r_P o w e r}$	62.23	64.58	63.89
$R P_{H e l l i n g e r F w d R e v_P o w e r F w d R e v}$	60.70	62.91	62.23
Average Pooling	50.29	55.32	52.01
Max Pooling	60.74	64.79	62.41
LSTM Pooling	56.64	60.63	58.13
HMM Pooling	60.23	61.01	60.11