MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Visual Similarity Search of Cattle Brands Using Deep Learning on Binary Representations

2025· article· W4416183832 on OpenAlexafffund
Marcos Vinicius S. Medeiros, Edmundo Hoyle, Aldo A. Díaz-Salazar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkDeep learningRobustness (evolution)Image retrievalScalabilityPattern recognition (psychology)Binary numberSimilarity (geometry)Binary classification

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Identifying cattle brands is a challenging visual task due to variability in branding styles, degradation over time, and the absence of standardized, large-scale datasets. To address this, we propose a deep learning-based Content-Based Image Retrieval (CBIR) framework specifically designed for this problem. Our system matches hand-drawn or digitized query sketches of cattle brands against a reference database of binarized brand symbols using learned visual embeddings for similarity search. To support training and rigorous evaluation, we assembled the Apporteira Cattle Brand Dataset, comprising 5,233 clean binary brand templates, 1,454 hand-drawn sketches, and over 627,000 augmented images simulating real-world distortions via rotations, morphological operations, and homographic transformations. This dataset has been made publicly available to enable reproducible research and benchmarking. We evaluate classical feature descriptors, pretrained convolutional neural networks (ResNet-50, MobileNet, VGG), and a fine-tuned VGG-16 model adapted to this domain. Experiments are reported with standard CBIR metrics, including mean Average Precision (mAP) and Top-$k$accuracy, together with retrieval efficiency using Facebook AI Similarity Search (FAISS) to assess scalability. Our fine-tuned model achieves 79.71% Top-1 and 97.18% Top-10 accuracy, substantially outperforming generic CNN baselines and handcrafted methods. The results highlight the effectiveness of task-specific fine-tuning, showing consistent gains even when baselines perform strongly at higher ranks, and demonstrate the system's robustness to symbol variation, offering a scalable solution for livestock identification, rural security enforcement, and brand registry automation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.363 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207