Applying Deep Learning Models to Mouse Behavior Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many animal-related studies, a high-performance animal behavior recognition system can help researchers reduce or get rid of the limitation of human assessments and make the experiments easier to reproduce. Recently, although deep learning models are holding state-of-the-art performances in human action recognition tasks, these models are not well-studied in applying to animal behavior recognition tasks. One reason is the lack of extensive datasets which are required to train these deep models for good performances. In this research, we investigated two current state-of-the-art deep learning models in human action recognition tasks, the I3D model and the R(2 + 1)D model, in solving a mouse behavior recognition task. We compared their performances with other models from previous researches and the results showed that the deep learning models that pre-trained using human action datasets then fine-tuned using the mouse behavior dataset can outperform other models from previous researches. It also shows promises of applying these deep learning models to other animal behavior recognition tasks without any significant modification in the models’ architecture, all we need to do is collecting proper datasets for the tasks and fine-tuning the pre-trained models using the collected data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".