Back

Machine learning outcompetes human assessment in identifying eggs of a conspecific brood parasite

Hughes, A. E.; Mari, L.; Troscianko, J.; Jelinek, V.; Albrecht, T.; Sulc, M.

2024-11-22 zoology
10.1101/2024.11.22.624802 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Avian brood parasitism provides an exceptional system for studying coevolution. While conspecific brood parasitism (CBP) is more common than interspecific parasitism, it is less studied due to the challenge of detecting parasitic eggs, which closely resemble those of the host. Although molecular genotyping can accurately detect CBP, its high cost has led researchers to explore egg appearance as a more accessible alternative. Barn swallows (Hirundo rustica) are considered conspecific brood parasites, but identifying parasitic eggs has traditionally relied on human visual assessment. Here, we used UV-visible photographs of non-parasitized barn swallow clutches and simulated parasitism to compare the accuracy of human assessment with automated methods. In two games, participants and models identified parasitic eggs from six or two options. While humans performed better than chance (72% and 87% accuracy), they still made significant errors. In contrast, the automated supervised model was far more reliable, achieving 95% and 97% accuracy. We think that the model outperformed humans due to its ability to analyse a broader range of visual information, including UV reflectance, which humans cannot perceive. We recommend using supervised models over human assessment for identifying conspecific parasitic eggs and highlight their potential to advance research on evolution of egg colouration.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Animal Behaviour
73 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.7%
2
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
39 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.7%
3
Journal of Experimental Biology
259 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.8%
4
Peer Community Journal
281 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
6.3%
50% of probability mass above
5
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
5.5%
6
Ethology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
7
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 37%
3.3%
8
Ecology and Evolution
267 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
9
Biology Open
156 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
10
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.1%
11
Integrative Organismal Biology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
12
The American Naturalist
125 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
13
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.7%
14
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
110 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
15
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
393 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
16
Chemical Senses
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
17
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.1%
18
Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
19
Evolutionary Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
20
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
24 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
21
Journal of Thermal Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
22
Journal of Avian Biology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
23
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 34%
0.9%
24
Journal of Economic Entomology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
25
Molecular Ecology Resources
171 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
26
Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%