Fig. 4
From: An open-source tool for automated human-level circling behavior detection
Method performance comparison. After optimizing behavior detection algorithms on the human-labeled training set, each was scored on the human consensus circling labels of the test set. Each column represents one algorithm, with one dot for each test set video with a defined score. Videos for which F1 score is undefined (i.e., the automated method and human consensus both marked no circling instances) were included in confidence interval calculations but not displayed as individual datapoints. The Duration-Only and Time-Angle methods significantly underperformed independent human observers (mean and 95% CI 0.1 (0.02–0.17) and 0.22 (0.03–0.47), p = 1.1E−11 and 4.7E−6, respectively). Only the Box-Angle method reaches statistical parity (mean F1 0.43 (0.21–0.57), p = 0.51).
