MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2992282318 · doi:10.1109/crv50864.2020.00012

Tree bark re-identification using a deep-learning feature descriptor

2020· preprint· en· W2992282318 on OpenAlexafffund
Martin Robert, Patrick Dallaire, Philippe Giguère

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNvidia
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceScale-invariant feature transformComputer scienceTree (set theory)Benchmark (surveying)Context (archaeology)Identification (biology)Bark (sound)Pattern recognition (psychology)Deep learningFeature (linguistics)Computer visionPixelFeature extractionGeographyMathematicsCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to visually re-identify objects is a fundamental capability in vision systems. Oftentimes, it relies on collections of visual signatures based on descriptors, such as SIFT or SURF. However, these traditional descriptors were designed for a certain domain of surface appearances and geometries (limited relief). Consequently, highly-textured surfaces such as tree bark pose a challenge to them. In turn, this makes it more difficult to use trees as identifiable landmarks for navigational purposes (robotics) or to track felled lumber along a supply chain (logistics). We thus propose to use data-driven descriptors trained on bark images for tree surface re-identification. To this effect, we collected a large dataset containing 2,400 bark images with strong illumination changes, annotated by surface and with the ability to pixel-align them. We used this dataset to sample from more than 2 million 64×64 pixel patches to train our novel local descriptors DeepBark and SqueezeBark. Our DeepBark method has shown a clear advantage against the hand-crafted descriptors SIFT and SURF. For instance, we demonstrated that DeepBark can reach a mAP of 87.2% when retrieving 11 relevant bark images, i.e. corresponding to the same physical surface, to a bark query against 7,900 images. Our work thus suggests that re-identifying tree surfaces in a challenging illuminations context is possible. We also make public our dataset, which can be used to benchmark surface re-identification techniques.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207