Research Article
Driver Fatigue Detection Method Based on Human Pose Information Entropy
Table 2
Fatigue detection results among different classifiers.
| Classifier | Setting | Accuracy (%) | Precision (%) | Recall (%) | Train set | Test set | Train set | Test set | Train set | Test set |
| BAYES | — | 90.13 | 89.36 | 88.51 | 87.56 | 91.63 | 88.53 | MLP | (32, 32) | 96.3 | 98.1 | 95.51 | 98.23 | 98.62 | 97.53 | (64, 64) | 96.4 | 97.85 | 95.68 | 98.12 | 98.31 | 97.43 | (128, 128) | 96.7 | 98.1 | 94.64 | 98.21 | 98.73 | 97.45 | (32, 32, 32) | 98.32 | 98.01 | 97.91 | 97.42 | 98.83 | 99.21 | (64, 64, 64) | 98.46 | 98.13 | 97.93 | 97.47 | 98.87 | 99.13 | (128, 128, 128) | 98.70 | 98.30 | 98.11 | 97.50 | 98.98 | 99.23 |
| SVM | T = 1, d = 10 | 95.07 | 95.75 | 93.39 | 94.32 | 96.95 | 97.20 | T = 1, d = 8 | 94.30 | 94.22 | 92.87 | 93.71 | 95.93 | 94.91 | T = 0 | 98.81 | 99.35 | 99.23 | 98.98 | 98.61 | 99.49 |
|
|