Do you get what you see? Insights of using mAP to select architectures of pretrained neural networks for automated aerial animal detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The vast amount of images generated by aerial imagery in the context of regular wildlife surveys nowadays require automatic processing tools. At the top of the mountain of different methods to automatically detect objects in images reigns deep learning's object detection. The recent focus given to this task has led to an influx of many different architectures of neural networks that are benchmarked against standard datasets like Microsoft's Common Objects in COntext (COCO). Performance on COCO, a large dataset of computer vision images, is given in terms of mean Average Precision (mAP). In this study, we use six pretrained networks to detect red deer from aerial images, three of which have never been used, to our knowledge, in a context of aerial wildlife surveys. We compare their performance along COCO's mAP and a common test metric in animal surveys, the F1-score. We also evaluate how dataset imbalance and background uniformity, two common difficulties in wildlife surveys, impact the performance of our models. Our results show that the mAP is not a reliable metric to select the best model to count animals in aerial images and that a counting-focused metric like the F1-score should be favored instead. Our best overall performance was achieved with Generalized Focal Loss (GFL). It scored the highest along both metrics, combining most accurate counting and localization (with average F1-score of 0.96 and 0.97 and average mAP scores of 0.77 and 0.89 on both datasets respectively) and is therefore very promising for future applications. While both imbalance and background uniformity improved the performance of our models, their combined effect had twice as much impact as the choice of architecture. This finding seems to confirm that the recent data-centric shift in the deep learning field could also lead to performance gains in wildlife surveys.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".