Automated facial recognition for wildlife that lack unique markings: A deep learning approach for brown bears
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Emerging technologies support a new era of applied wildlife research, generating data on scales from individuals to populations. Computer vision methods can process large datasets generated through image‐based techniques by automating the detection and identification of species and individuals. With the exception of primates, however, there are no objective visual methods of individual identification for species that lack unique and consistent body markings. We apply deep learning approaches of facial recognition using object detection, landmark detection, a similarity comparison network, and an support vector machine‐based classifier to identify individuals in a representative species, the brown bear Ursus arctos . Our open‐source application, BearID , detects a bear’s face in an image, rotates and extracts the face, creates an “embedding” for the face, and uses the embedding to classify the individual. We trained and tested the application using labeled images of 132 known individuals collected from British Columbia, Canada, and Alaska, USA. Based on 4,674 images, with an 80/20% split for training and testing, respectively, we achieved a facial detection (ability to find a face) average precision of 0.98 and an individual classification (ability to identify the individual) accuracy of 83.9%. BearID and its annotated source code provide a replicable methodology for applying deep learning methods of facial recognition applicable to many other species that lack distinguishing markings. Further analyses of performance should focus on the influence of certain parameters on recognition accuracy, such as age and body size. Combining BearID with camera trapping could facilitate fine‐scale behavioral research such as individual spatiotemporal activity patterns, and a cost‐effective method of population monitoring through mark–recapture studies, with implications for species and landscape conservation and management. Applications to practical conservation include identifying problem individuals in human–wildlife conflicts, and evaluating the intrapopulation variation in efficacy of conservation strategies, such as wildlife crossings.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".