MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161108381 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-12157

Deep Learning Enhances the Detection of Breeding Birds in UAV Images

2021· article· en· W3161108381 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin Kellenberger, Thor Veen, Eelke O. Folmer, Devis Tuia

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsQuest University Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeabirdDeep learningWildlifeMarkov random fieldBiodiversityAbundance (ecology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceGeolocationWildlife refugeHigh resolutionGeographyCartographyRemote sensingMachine learningEcologyBiologyPredationImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Recently, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) equipped with high-resolution imaging sensors have become a viable alternative for ecologists to conduct wildlife censuses, compared to foot surveys. They cause less disturbance by sensing remotely, they provide coverage of otherwise inaccessible areas, and their images can be reviewed and double-checked in controlled screening sessions. However, the amount of data they generate often makes this photo-interpretation stage prohibitively time-consuming.</p><p>In this work, we automate the detection process with deep learning [4]. We focus on counting coastal seabirds on sand islands off the West African coast, where species like the African Royal Tern are at the top of the food chain [5]. Monitoring their abundance provides invaluable insights into biodiversity in this area [7]. In a first step, we obtained orthomosaics from nadir-looking UAVs over six sand islands with 1cm resolution. We then fully labelled one of them with points for four seabird species, which required three weeks for five annotators to do and resulted in over 21,000 individuals. Next, we further labelled the other five orthomosaics, but in an incomplete manner; we aimed for a low number of only 200 points per species. These points, together with a few background polygons, served as training data for our ResNet-based [2] detection model. This low number of points required multiple strategies to obtain stable predictions, including curriculum learning [1] and post-processing by a Markov random field [6]. In the end, our model was able to accurately predict the 21,000 birds of the test image with 90% precision at 90% recall (Fig. 1) [3]. Furthermore, this model required a mere 4.5 hours from creating training data to the final prediction, which is a fraction of the three weeks needed for the manual labelling process. Inference time is only a few minutes, which makes the model scale favourably to many more islands. In sum, the combination of UAVs and machine learning-based detectors simultaneously provides census possibilities with unprecedentedly high accuracy and comparably minuscule execution time.</p><p><img src="https://contentmanager.copernicus.org/fileStorageProxy.php?f=gnp.bc5211f4f60067568601161/sdaolpUECMynit/12UGE&app=m&a=0&c=eeda7238e992b9591c2fec19197f67dc&ct=x&pn=gnp.elif&d=1" alt=""></p><p><em>Fig. 1: Our model is able to predict over 21,000 birds in high-resolution UAV images in a fraction of time compared to weeks of manual labelling.</em></p><p> </p><p>References</p><p>1. Bengio, Yoshua, et al. "Curriculum learning." Proceedings of the 26th annual international conference on machine learning. 2009.</p><p>2. He, Kaiming, et al. "Deep residual learning for image recognition." Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2016.</p><p>3. Kellenberger, Benjamin, et al. “21,000 Birds in 4.5 Hours: Efficient Large-scale Seabird Detection with Machine Learning.” Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation. Under review.</p><p>4. LeCun, Yann, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey Hinton. "Deep learning." nature 521.7553 (2015): 436-444.</p><p>5. Parsons, Matt, et al. "Seabirds as indicators of the marine environment." ICES Journal of Marine Science 65.8 (2008): 1520-1526.</p><p>6. Tuia, Devis, Michele Volpi, and Gabriele Moser. "Decision fusion with multiple spatial supports by conditional random fields." IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 56.6 (2018): 3277-3289.</p><p>7. Veen, Jan, Hanneke Dallmeijer, and Thor Veen. "Selecting piscivorous bird species for monitoring environmental change in the Banc d'Arguin, Mauritania." Ardea 106.1 (2018): 5-18.</p>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207