Unique Lion Identification Using Triplet Loss and Siamese Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Former techniques for the identification of lion individuals (Panthera leo) relied on manual methods of recording data. Such processes have various shortcomings due to the manual nature of recording this data. This research work aims to automate the process of encoding the uniqueness within the whisker spot patterns for each lion individual by non-invasively using photographs. Towards this research work the main bottleneck was the availability of image data for individual lions. The proposed model embeds the uniqueness within the patterns for a specific individual as a unique cluster within its embedding space. This is achieved by using a triplet loss function which, due to its one-shot learning nature trains a deep inception network with less training data. Photographic images are known to have variations in lighting, pose variation, angle variation and other inconsistencies. Since the nature of these issues are nonlinear, it is preferred to create the target model using deep learning techniques. An inception network is trained to generate 128-dimensional vectors unique to each lion. This research paper elaborates on such deep machine learning techniques and other processes that are used to create this model.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".