A Comparative Study of Automated Machine Learning Platforms for Exercise Anthropometry-Based Typology Analysis: Performance Evaluation of AWS SageMaker, GCP VertexAI, and MS Azure

Abstract

The increasing prevalence of machine learning (ML) and automated machine learning (AutoML) applications across diverse industries necessitates rigorous comparative evaluations of their predictive accuracies under various computational environments. The purpose of this research was to compare and analyze the predictive accuracy of several machine learning algorithms, including RNNs, LSTMs, GRUs, XGBoost, and LightGBM, when implemented on different platforms such as Google Colab Pro, AWS SageMaker, GCP Vertex AI, and MS Azure. The predictive performance of each model within its respective environment was assessed using performance metrics such as accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and log loss. All algorithms were trained on the same dataset and implemented on their specified platforms to ensure consistent comparisons. The dataset used in this study comprised fitness images, encompassing 41 exercise types and totaling 6 million samples. These images were acquired from AI-hub, and joint coordinate values (x, y, z) were extracted utilizing the Mediapipe library. The extracted values were then stored in a CSV format. Among the ML algorithms, LSTM demonstrated the highest performance, achieving an accuracy of 73.75%, precision of 74.55%, recall of 73.68%, F1-score of 73.11%, and a log loss of 0.71. Conversely, among the AutoML algorithms, XGBoost performed exceptionally well on AWS SageMaker, boasting an accuracy of 99.6%, precision of 99.8%, recall of 99.2%, F1-score of 99.5%, and a log loss of 0.014. On the other hand, LightGBM exhibited the poorest performance on MS Azure, achieving an accuracy of 84.2%, precision of 82.2%, recall of 81.8%, F1-score of 81.5%, and a log loss of 1.176. The unnamed algorithm implemented on GCP Vertex AI showcased relatively favorable results, with an accuracy of 89.9%, precision of 94.2%, recall of 88.4%, F1-score of 91.2%, and a log loss of 0.268. Despite LightGBM’s lackluster performance on MS Azure, the GRU implemented in Google Colab Pro displayed encouraging results, yielding an accuracy of 88.2%, precision of 88.5%, recall of 88.1%, F1-score of 88.4%, and a log loss of 0.44. Overall, this study revealed significant variations in performance across different algorithms and platforms. Particularly, AWS SageMaker’s implementation of XGBoost outperformed other configurations, highlighting the importance of carefully considering the choice of algorithm and computational environment in predictive tasks. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the factors contributing to these performance discrepancies, further investigations are recommended.