An Automatic Insect Recognition Algorithm in Complex Background Based on Convolution Neural Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The existing insect recognition methods mostly segment the target region by traditional classification technology, failing to achieve a high accuracy in complex background. To solve the problem, this paper introduces the morphology-based edgeless active contour strategy to segment insects in complex background. The strategy integrates the morphological operation of gray image, and detects insect contours by narrow-band fast method. To enhance the background diversity of new samples, the authors improved the synthetic minority over-sampling technique (SMOTE) algorithm into a variable weight edge enhancement algorithm. Based on the SMOTE algorithm, the proposed algorithm increases the weight of the edge area as adjacent images are superimposed into a new image, making the background of the new image more complex. Finally, the proposed method was coupled with DenseNet-121 to recognize insects in images with complex background. The results show that the accuracy of the network was nearly 10% higher on the balanced set than on the unbalanced set, suggesting that our method is feasible and accurate.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".