Back

Optimizing Intermediate Representations: A Framework for Low-Cost, High-Accuracy Behavior Quantification

Choi, J. D.; Geuther, B. Q.; Kumar, V.

2026-04-01 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.03.29.715170 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Quantitative measurement of animal behavior is a cornerstone of neuroscience, genetics, and ethology. While modern computer vision has democratized automated analysis, the field has coalesced around pose estimation as the standard intermediate representation. This reliance imposes a significant bottleneck: researchers must often train custom pose models using large, labor-intensive datasets. Furthermore, the assumption that denser anatomical tracking yields better classification remains largely unverified. Here, we benchmark intermediate representations for supervised mouse behavior classification to determine the optimal trade-off between annotation cost and model performance. We systematically evaluate the sensitivity of classification to keypoint density, the impact of temporal feature engineering, and the viability of segmentation-derived shape descriptors as a low-cost alternative. We find that classifier performance is remarkably robust to keypoint variation; increasing keypoint density yields negligible gains, particularly when behavior training sets are sufficiently large. In contrast, augmenting models with temporal features (specifically FFT-based signal processing) consistently drives performance improvements. Crucially, we demonstrate that whole-body segmentation achieves performance parity with explicit pose estimation across most behaviors. These findings challenge the "more is better" intuition in pose tracking and suggest a paradigm shift: efficient pipelines should prioritize behavioral dataset volume and temporal dynamics over complex anatomical keypoints.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.