Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 62 references

Towards Context-Rich Automated Biodiversity Assessments: Deriving AI-Powered Insights from Camera Trap Data

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A detector plus a label-reading language model lifts camera-trap species IDs to near-perfect F1.

desk verdict A useful, honest engineering integration whose species-ID gain is inherited from YOLO rather than demonstrated by the hybrid pipeline; worth reviewing after adding a YOLO-only baseline and fixing the numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14219 v1 pith:RBYY74NY submitted 2024-11-21 cs.CV cs.AI

Paul Fergus , Carl Chalmers , Naomi Matthews , Stuart Nixon , Andre Burger , Oliver Hartley , Chris Sutherland , Xavier Lambin
show 2 more authors
Steven Longmore Serge Wich
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords cameratrapanalysisobjectdetectionvision-languagemodelsretrieval-augmentedgenerationwildlifeconservationbiodiversitymonitoringspeciesidentificationautomatedreporting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that a camera-trap analysis pipeline can get both accurate species identifications and context-rich answers by combining a fast object detector with a vision-language model rather than asking either model to do the whole job. The detector finds and labels animals; the language model reads those labels instead of trying to recognise species from raw pixels, then adds scene context and retrieves external facts. On a 602-image test set, species-level F1 scores rose sharply (black-backed jackal from 0.333 to 0.824) and several species reached perfect 1.0 scores, while ten ecological questions answered through retrieval-augmented generation scored up to 0.938 BERTScore F1. If the result holds, conservation teams could largely automate the annotation-to-report workflow for camera-trap surveys.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the label-handoff: the object detector draws a bounding box around each animal with the species name rendered as text, and the vision-language model reads that label to identify the species rather than recognising the animal directly from pixels. This bypasses the language model's weakness on low-quality camera-trap images, so species identity comes from the detector while the language model contributes scene context (vegetation, time of day, camera metadata) and natural-language answers. A retrieval-augmented generation stage then supplies facts the image cannot show, such as average weight and conservation status.

What would settle it

A controlled ablation that feeds the detector's species identities to the language model as structured text instead of rendered labels—or that systematically varies label font, size, and colour—would settle whether the claimed gains come from label reading. If jackal F1 stays at 0.824 when the labels are absent or scrambled, the paper's mechanism is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a two-stage design—YOLOv10-X localising and classifying animals, with Phi-3.5-vision-instruct reading the rendered bounding-box labels and adding scene context—produces substantially more accurate and context-rich camera-trap analyses than a vision-language model alone. The authors report that with object-detection support, species identification F1 improves dramatically (for example, black-backed jackal from 0.333 to 0.824, and perfect 1.0 scores for hippopotamus, oryx, hartebeest, gorilla, kob, and guineafowl), and that retrieval-augmented generation using external sources returns answers to ten ecological questions with BERTScore F1 up to 0.938. They position this as a practical route to automated biodiversity reporting that reduces manual annotation and gives non-specialists natural-language access to species, trait, and conservation-status information.

Load-bearing premise

The species-identification gain rests on the language model reliably reading the species name printed on the detector's bounding-box labels; if the text rendering or OCR fails, the improvement collapses (the paper's rhinoceros precision of 0.4628 is the visible symptom).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Conservation teams could process camera-trap images with far less manual annotation, since species labels and structured question-answer pairs are produced automatically.
  • Species-level F1 scores near 1.0 for visually distinct species mean population counts and occupancy analyses could be built directly from pipeline outputs.
  • RAG answers with BERTScore F1 between 0.82 and 0.94 suggest that routine ecological queries and structured reports can be automated.
  • The detector can also discard blank frames (about 68% of camera-trap datasets in the authors' experience), cutting compute and review time.
  • Because the language model reads labels rather than raw pixels, the approach avoids costly fine-tuning of a large vision-language model on camera-trap imagery.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct comparison of the label-reading route against a single fine-tuned detector working on raw images would separate the contribution of the two stages from the contribution of the training data.
  • If the label-handoff is the real source of the gains, a lighter OCR-plus-text-LLM system might match the species-ID results at lower cost, with the vision-language model's visual skills reserved for scene context.
  • Systematically varying label rendering (colour, font size, box thickness) should reproduce the reported rhinoceros precision drop, giving a direct test of the OCR dependency and a recipe for fixing it.
  • The RAG score pattern—factual questions scoring highest and ecosystem-role or predator questions lower—suggests that harder relational answers will need structured knowledge sources rather than free-text pages.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a two-stage camera-trap analysis pipeline: YOLOv10-X detects and classifies species, Phi-3.5-vision-instruct reads the rendered bounding-box labels to identify the species and extracts environmental/contextual information, and a RAG module retrieves Wikipedia passages to enrich answers, which are then formatted into structured reports via Llama-2-7b. Evaluation is based on 41,111 training images, 602 independent evaluation images, and 10 RAG questions. Tables 1 and 2 compare Phi-3.5 without and with YOLO support, reporting substantial F1 gains; Table 3 reports BERTScore F1 between 0.8554 and 0.9382 for the RAG question-answering component.

Significance. If the reported results are robust, the system would be a useful proof-of-concept for reducing manual annotation effort and producing conservation-relevant narratives from camera-trap imagery. The paper's modular architecture is clearly described, and the authors explicitly acknowledge several limitations, including OCR sensitivity and the rudimentary nature of automated reporting. However, the main species-identification claim is not yet supported because the comparison lacks a YOLO-only baseline, the 602-image evaluation set is undescribed, no uncertainty quantification is provided, and the RAG evaluation rests on only ten questions. The contribution is therefore currently at the proof-of-concept level rather than a validated biodiversity-assessment tool.

major comments (4)
  1. [4.3, Table 2 (with Sections 2.3 and 2.4)] The combined system's species identification is performed by Phi-3.5 reading YOLOv10's rendered bounding-box labels, as stated in Sections 2.3, 2.4, and 4.3. Consequently, the per-species F1 values in Table 2 are upper-bounded by YOLO's classification accuracy on the 602 evaluation images and can only be degraded by OCR errors. The paper never reports YOLO-only precision, recall, or F1 on those same 602 images. Without that baseline, the claimed benefit of the two-stage pipeline over YOLO alone is unsubstantiated; I request a YOLO-only evaluation on the same 602 images and a quantitative report of OCR failures.
  2. [5, Table 2, Section 6] The admitted sensitivity of the OCR step to rendering details is load-bearing for the species-identification claim. Section 5 states that non-standard text colors, thin bounding boxes, and small text cause misclassifications (e.g., Rhinocerotidae precision 0.4628), and Section 6 proposes replacing the OCR-based readout with a SQL record to bypass these failures. This shows that the apparent species-ID gain in Table 2 depends on label-rendering conventions rather than on visual understanding. The authors should quantify the OCR error rate, test at least one alternative label rendering, and show how Table 2 changes, or restrict the claim to the specific rendering used.
  3. [4.2-4.4, Tables 1-3] The evaluation methodology is too thin to support the general claims. The 602 independent images are not described in terms of sampling, class frequencies, or overlap with the training distribution; no error bars, confidence intervals, or repeated-run variability are given; and no comparison is made to existing camera-trap species-ID pipelines such as MegaDetector-based classifiers or species-specific detectors. The RAG evaluation is based on only ten questions, with no retrieval ablation and no assessment of factuality beyond BERTScore. At minimum, the authors should describe the evaluation set, provide bootstrap or repeated-run intervals, and add one or two established baselines.
  4. [Table 1] There is an arithmetic inconsistency in the Hippopotamus amphibious row: precision 1.0000 and recall 0.8330 imply F1 approximately 0.909, not the reported 0.1538. The Roan antelope row also disagrees slightly: precision 1.0000 and recall 0.0800 give F1 approximately 0.1481, not 0.1429. Because Table 1 is the baseline against which the central improvement is measured, all reported metrics should be recomputed and checked for consistency.
minor comments (6)
  1. [2.4] The text refers to 'Equus quagga (Pains zebra)'; this should be 'Plains zebra'.
  2. [Global] The phrase 'binding box' is used throughout the manuscript; it should be 'bounding box'.
  3. [Figures] Figure numbering is duplicated: Figure 5 appears for both the PR curve and the multi-animal image, Figure 10 for both the training confusion matrix and the VLM confusion matrix, and Figure 12 for both the Alpaca format and the sample report. The figures should be renumbered sequentially.
  4. [References] Reference 34 is attributed to 'Micrsoft' and should be corrected to 'Microsoft'; several other references have inconsistent formatting.
  5. [5] There is a typo in 'optical chara cter recognition'; also the discussion of blank images uses approximate figures (35,018,212 processed images) without a clear source date, which should be stated.
  6. [2.5 and 4.4] The RAG module retrieves from Wikipedia because large-scale IUCN Red List scraping is forbidden; the paper should clarify whether the IUCN statuses in Table 3 come from Wikipedia and note the resulting currency/factuality risk.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The two-stage species-identification result reduces to YOLO's bounding-box label read by OCR, so the reported F1 gain over the VLM-only baseline is inherited by construction.

  1. self definitional [Section 5 (Discussion); mechanism described in Sections 2.3 and 4.3, evaluated in Table 2]
    "By focusing on interpreting labels within bounding boxes, the Phi -3.5 model bypassed many of the challenges associated with direct image analysis, significantly reducing the rate of misclassification and improving accuracy."

    The species-identification output evaluated in Table 2 is defined as the YOLOv10-X species label, transmitted as rendered bounding-box text and OCR-read by Phi-3.5. Thus the F1 improvements (e.g., Canis mesomelas from 0.3333 to 0.8235) are YOLO's classification passed through a text-reading step, not an independent visual identification by the VLM. Section 6 confirms that replacing the OCR step with a SQL record of YOLO's detections is expected to give the same species information, and Section 5 admits OCR failures (Rhinocerotidae precision 0.4628) limit the two-stage result. No YOLO-only baseline on the same 602 images is reported, so the claimed two-stage species-ID advantage is not tested separately from YOLO's own classifier.

full rationale

The only substantive reduction is the species-ID component: by the paper's own description, Phi-3.5 does not visually recognize species in the combined system; it reads the labels YOLOv10-X has already placed on the image. Consequently, the species-identification F1 scores reported as the two-stage result are equivalent, up to OCR errors, to YOLO's classifier outputs, making the improvement over the VLM-only condition a by-construction inheritance. The paper is transparent about this mechanism, and it is an engineering design choice rather than a hidden derivation; however, the central species-ID claim is partially circular because the evaluated output is fed by the very detector whose labels it reports. The RAG-based answering and automatic reporting contributions are independent and externally evaluated against expert ground truth, and the self-citations to Conservation AI are provenance rather than load-bearing evidence, so they do not add to the score. The score of 6 reflects that one major claimed prediction (species identification with object detection support) reduces by construction, while the contextual and retrieval components retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No invented entities such as new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The free parameters are deployment choices: retrieved passage count, F1-optimal confidence threshold, and image crop count. The central axioms are that YOLO labels are reliable, Wikipedia facts are accurate, BERTScore is a valid answer-quality metric, the 602-image set is representative, and the 68% blank-rate statistic applies. None of these are independently verified in the paper.

free parameters (3)
  • Retrieved Wikipedia passage count = 20
    The RAG retriever is configured to gather up to 20 Wikipedia pages; this choice affects answer content and is not optimized or reported per query.
  • F1-optimal confidence threshold = 0.422
    The F1-confidence curve peaks at 0.422, but the operational YOLO threshold used in the evaluation is not stated, so the operating point is ambiguous.
  • Maximum image crops for Phi-3.5 = 16
    Phi-3.5 processes up to 16 crops of the input image; the crop count influences context extraction but is fixed without sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption YOLOv10-X species labels are correct enough to serve as authoritative species identity for the VLM reading step.
    Section 4.3 uses YOLO's bounding-box labels as the source that Phi-3.5 reads to identify species. If YOLO labels are wrong, the combined system inherits the error.
  • domain assumption Wikipedia passages retrieved by keyword contain correct external facts such as weight and IUCN status.
    Section 2.5 sources Wikipedia because IUCN Red List scraping is forbidden. The paper does not audit the factual accuracy of retrieved passages against authoritative conservation data.
  • domain assumption BERTScore against a conservationist's answer is a valid measure of ecological answer quality.
    Section 2.8 and Section 3.4 use BERTScore to compare generated answers to ground truth; no human preference or ecological validation is reported.
  • domain assumption The 602 independent camera trap images are representative and correctly labelled.
    Section 2.2 introduces the 602-image evaluation set but does not describe selection criteria, geographic spread, or class distribution, making the aggregate metrics hard to interpret.
  • domain assumption Approximately 68% of camera trap images are blank, so removing them improves efficiency.
    Section 5 estimates the blank rate from Conservation AI's own processed images (35,018,212 images), not from the evaluation dataset used in this study.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Context-Rich Automated Biodiversity Assessments: Deriving AI-Powered Insights from Camera Trap Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RBYY74NY

@misc{pith2026241114219,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Context-Rich Automated Biodiversity Assessments: Deriving AI-Powered Insights from Camera Trap Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RBYY74NY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14219}
}
read the original abstract

Camera traps offer enormous new opportunities in ecological studies, but current automated image analysis methods often lack the contextual richness needed to support impactful conservation outcomes. Here we present an integrated approach that combines deep learning-based vision and language models to improve ecological reporting using data from camera traps. We introduce a two-stage system: YOLOv10-X to localise and classify species (mammals and birds) within images, and a Phi-3.5-vision-instruct model to read YOLOv10-X binding box labels to identify species, overcoming its limitation with hard to classify objects in images. Additionally, Phi-3.5 detects broader variables, such as vegetation type, and time of day, providing rich ecological and environmental context to YOLO's species detection output. When combined, this output is processed by the model's natural language system to answer complex queries, and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is employed to enrich responses with external information, like species weight and IUCN status (information that cannot be obtained through direct visual analysis). This information is used to automatically generate structured reports, providing biodiversity stakeholders with deeper insights into, for example, species abundance, distribution, animal behaviour, and habitat selection. Our approach delivers contextually rich narratives that aid in wildlife management decisions. By providing contextually rich insights, our approach not only reduces manual effort but also supports timely decision-making in conservation, potentially shifting efforts from reactive to proactive management.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14219 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flow chart illustrating an overview of the workflow for the multi-modal YOLOv10-x and Phi3.5 systems integration for context-rich camera trap data processing. Conservation-specific insights are extracted with contextual awareness, further enriched by supplementary information retrieved from external sources, such as the IUCN Red List (Step 5 and 6). This system generates structured question-and-answer pairs, facilit… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Class distribution for the sub-Saharan Africa dataset used to train the YOLOv10-X model to localise and detect mammals, birds, people and cars. The dataset is divided into training, validation, and test sets with an 80:10:10 split. The training set facilitates model learning, the validation set is used for hyperparameter tuning, and the test set evaluates performance using mean average precision (mAP) and intersecti… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. The confusion matrix provides a detailed breakdown of the classifications made by the Phi 3.5-vision model when applied to raw images without YOLOv10-X object detection support. 4.3. Results for Vision-Language Model with OD Support This section presents the performance of the Phi 3.5 model with object detection support for animal identification. The labelled images, from YOLOv10-X, are processed by the Phi-3.5 mode… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Confusion matrix for the Phi 3.5 model using the od binding boxes from the test case images. 4.4. Results for Retrieval Augmented Generation We now evaluate the capabilities of the Phi-3.5 model within the RAG framework. Building on its success in species identificati…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Alpaca JSON format showing the question-answer pairs. This function is applied to the entire dataset of camera trap images, resulting in a comprehensive collection of species-specific analyses. The use of the Alpaca format enables the integration of this information i…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Sample report using Alpaca Q&A. 5. Discussion The results from this study highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the Phi-3.5 model, particularly in challenging scenarios involving low-quality camera trap images. In the initial set of experiments, where the mod…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. F. O’Connell, J. D. Nichols, and K. U. Karanth, Camera traps in animal ecology: methods and analyses , vol

    work page

  2. [2]

    Snap happy: camera traps are an effective sampling tool when compared with alternative methods,

    O. R. Wearn and P. Glover -Kapfer, “Snap happy: camera traps are an effective sampling tool when compared with alternative methods,” R Soc Open Sci, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 181748, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Towards automatic wild animal monitoring: Identification of animal species in camera-trap images using very deep convolutional neural networks,

    A. G. Villa, A. Salazar, and F. Vargas, “Towards automatic wild animal monitoring: Identification of animal species in camera-trap images using very deep convolutional neural networks,” Ecol Inform, vol. 41, pp. 24– 32, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Software to facilitate and streamline camera trap data management: A review,

    S. Young, J. Rode -Margono, and R. Amin, “Software to facilitate and streamline camera trap data management: A review,” Ecol Evol, vol. 8, no. 19, pp. 9947–9957, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Advances in image acquisition and processing technologies transforming animal ecological studies,

    S. Nazir and M. Kaleem, “ Advances in image acquisition and processing technologies transforming animal ecological studies,” Ecol Inform, vol. 61, p. 101212, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Component processes of detection probability in camera - trap studies: understanding the occurrence of false-negatives,

    M. A. Findlay, R. A. Briers, and P. J. C. White, “Component processes of detection probability in camera - trap studies: understanding the occurrence of false-negatives,” Mamm Res, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 167–180, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Recommended guiding principles for reporting on camera trapping research,

    P. D. Meek et al., “Recommended guiding principles for reporting on camera trapping research,” Biodivers Conserv, vol. 23, pp. 2321–2343, 2014

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    You only look once: Unified, real -time object detection,

    J. Redmon, S. Divvala, R. Girshick, and A. Farhadi, “You only look once: Unified, real -time object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 779–788

    work page 2016

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Best practices and software for the management and sharing of camera trap data for small and large scales studies,

    L. Scotson et al., “Best practices and software for the management and sharing of camera trap data for small and large scales studies,” Remote Sens Ecol Conserv, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 158–172, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Snapshot Serengeti, high - frequency annotated camera trap images of 40 mammalian species in an African savanna,

    A. Swanson, M. Kosmala, C. Lintott, R. Simpson, A. Smith, and C. Packer, “Snapshot Serengeti, high - frequency annotated camera trap images of 40 mammalian species in an African savanna,” Sci Data, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2015

    2015

  3. [11]

    Planning for success: identifying effective and efficient survey designs for monitoring,

    J. H. Reynolds, W. L. Thompson, and B. Russell, “Planning for success: identifying effective and efficient survey designs for monitoring,” Biol Conserv, vol. 144, no. 5, pp. 1278–1284, 2011

    2011

  4. [12]

    A novel method to reduce time investment when processing videos from camera trap studies,

    K. R. R. Swinnen, J. Reijniers, M. Breno, and H. Leirs, “ A novel method to reduce time investment when processing videos from camera trap studies,” PLoS One, vol. 9, no. 6, p. e98881, 2014

    2014

  5. [13]

    R: a language for data analysis and graphics,

    R. Ihaka and R. Gentleman, “R: a language for data analysis and graphics,” Journal of computational and graphical statistics, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 299–314, 1996

    1996

  6. [14]

    Efficient pipeline for camera trap image review. arXiv,

    S. Beery, D. Morris, and S. Yang, “Efficient pipeline for camera trap image review. arXiv,” DOI: https://dx. doi. org/10.48550/arXiv, 1907

    1907 doi

  7. [15]

    Fennell, C

    M. Fennell, C. Beirne, and A. C. Burton, “Use of object detection in camera trap image identification: Assessing a method to rapidly and accurately classify human and animal detections for research and application in recreation ecology,” Glob Ecol Conserv, vol. 35, p. e02104, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Object detection in 20 years: A survey,

    Z. Zou, K. Chen, Z. Shi, Y. Guo, and J. Ye, “Object detection in 20 years: A survey,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 111, no. 3, pp. 257–276, 2023. 31

    2023

  9. [17]

    Biodiversity studies: science and policy,

    P. R. Ehrlich and E. O. Wilson, “Biodiversity studies: science and policy,” Science (1979), vol. 253, no. 5021, pp. 758–762, 1991

    1979

  10. [18]

    Enhancing biodiversity conservation and monitoring in protected areas through efficient data management,

    F. Urbano, R. Viterbi, L. Pedrotti, E. Vettorazzo, C. Movalli, and L. Corlatti, “Enhancing biodiversity conservation and monitoring in protected areas through efficient data management,” Environ Monit Assess, vol. 196, no. 1, p. 12, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Ecoinformatics: supporting ecology as a data -intensive science,

    W. K. Michener and M. B. Jones, “Ecoinformatics: supporting ecology as a data -intensive science,” Trends Ecol Evol, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 85–93, 2012

    2012

  12. [20]

    Object detection with deep learning: A review,

    Z.-Q. Zhao, P. Zheng, S. Xu, and X. Wu, “Object detection with deep learning: A review,” IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 3212–3232, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Harnessing Artificial Intelligence for Wildlife Conservation,

    P. Fergus, C. Chalmers, S. Longmore, and S. Wich, “Harnessing Artificial Intelligence for Wildlife Conservation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.10523, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Empowering wildlife guardians: an equitable digital stewardship and reward system for biodiversity conservation using deep learning and 3/4G camera traps,

    P. Fergus et al., “Empowering wildlife guardians: an equitable digital stewardship and reward system for biodiversity conservation using deep learning and 3/4G camera traps,” Remote Sens (Basel), vol. 15, no. 11, p. 2730, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Deep learning object detection methods for ecological camera trap data,

    S. Schneider, G. W. Taylor, and S. Kremer, “Deep learning object detection methods for ecological camera trap data,” in 2018 15th Conference on computer and robot vision (CRV), 2018, pp. 321–328

    2018

  16. [24]

    A comprehensive overview of technologies for species and habitat monitoring and conservation,

    J. J. Lahoz -Monfort and M. J. L. Magrath, “ A comprehensive overview of technologies for species and habitat monitoring and conservation,” Bioscience, vol. 71, no. 10, pp. 1038–1062, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    A survey on multimodal large language models,

    S. Yin et al., “ A survey on multimodal large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13549, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Contextual object detection with multimodal large language models,

    Y. Zang, W. Li, J. Han, K. Zhou, and C. C. Loy, “Contextual object detection with multimodal large language models,” Int J Comput Vis, pp. 1–19, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Learning to prompt for vision-language models,

    K. Zhou, J. Yang, C. C. Loy, and Z. Liu, “Learning to prompt for vision-language models,” Int J Comput Vis, vol. 130, no. 9, pp. 2337–2348, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Pre -trained language models and their applications,

    H. Wang, J. Li, H. Wu, E. Hovy, and Y. Sun, “Pre -trained language models and their applications,” Engineering, vol. 25, pp. 51–65, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Vcoder : Versatile vision encoders for multimodal large language models,

    J. Jain, J. Yang, and H. Shi, “Vcoder : Versatile vision encoders for multimodal large language models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 27992–28002

    2024

  22. [30]

    Visionllm: Large language model is also an open-ended decoder for vision-centric tasks,

    W. Wang et al., “Visionllm: Large language model is also an open-ended decoder for vision-centric tasks,” Adv Neural Inf Process Syst, vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Seeing what is not there: Learning context to determine where objects are missing,

    J. Sun and D. W. Jacobs, “Seeing what is not there: Learning context to determine where objects are missing,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2017, pp. 5716 – 5724

    2017

  24. [32]

    Deep learning for environmental conservation,

    A. Lamba, P. Cassey, R. R. Segaran, and L. P. Koh, “Deep learning for environmental conservation,” Current Biology, vol. 29, no. 19, pp. R977–R982, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    Yolov10: Real-time end-to-end object detection,

    A. Wang et al., “Yolov10: Real-time end-to-end object detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14458, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    microsoft/Phi-3.5-vision-instruct,

    Micrsoft, “microsoft/Phi-3.5-vision-instruct,” Oct. 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, “ Attention is all you need,” Adv Neural Inf Process Syst, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks,

    P. Lewis et al., “Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks,” Adv Neural Inf Process Syst, vol. 33, pp. 9459–9474, 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria: version 2.0,

    D. Keith et al., “Guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria: version 2.0,” 2024, IUCN

    2024

  30. [38]

    The LEDA Traitbase: a database of life -history traits of the Northwest European flora,

    M. Kleyer et al., “The LEDA Traitbase: a database of life -history traits of the Northwest European flora,” Journal of ecology, vol. 96, no. 6, pp. 1266–1274, 2008

    2008

  31. [39]

    Open Science principles for accelerating trait -based science across the Tree of Life,

    R. V Gallagher et al., “Open Science principles for accelerating trait -based science across the Tree of Life,” Nat Ecol Evol, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 294–303, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Biocredits,

    I. Porras and P. Steele, “Biocredits,” A solution for protecting nature and tackling poverty Environmental Economics. Issue Paper February 2020, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Vision-language models for vision tasks: A survey,

    J. Zhang, J. Huang, S. Jin, and S. Lu, “Vision-language models for vision tasks: A survey,” IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Real-time alerts from AI-enabled camera traps using the Iridium satellite network: A case-study in Gabon, Central Africa,

    R. C. Whytock et al., “Real-time alerts from AI-enabled camera traps using the Iridium satellite network: A case-study in Gabon, Central Africa,” Methods Ecol Evol, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 867–874, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    An evaluation of platforms for processing camera-trap data using artificial intelligence,

    J. Vélez et al., “ An evaluation of platforms for processing camera-trap data using artificial intelligence,” Methods Ecol Evol, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 459–477, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Fine-tuning llama for multi-stage text retrieval,

    X. Ma, L. Wang, N. Yang, F. Wei, and J. Lin, “Fine-tuning llama for multi-stage text retrieval,” in Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2024, pp. 2421–2425

    2024

  37. [45]

    The faiss library,

    M. Douze et al., “The faiss library,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.08281, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    A survey on performance metrics for object -detection algorithms,

    R. Padilla, S. L. Netto, and E. A. B. Da Silva, “ A survey on performance metrics for object -detection algorithms,” in 2020 international conference on systems, signals and image processing (IWSSIP), 2020, pp. 237– 242. 32

    2020

  39. [47]

    Faster R -CNN: Towards real -time object detection with region proposal networks,

    S. Ren, K. He, R. Girshick, and J. Sun, “Faster R -CNN: Towards real -time object detection with region proposal networks,” IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1137–1149, 2016

    2016

  40. [48]

    Deep learning,

    Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton, “Deep learning,” Nature, vol. 521, no. 7553, pp. 436–444, 2015

    2015

  41. [49]

    Microsoft coco: Common objects in context,

    T.-Y. Lin et al., “Microsoft coco: Common objects in context,” in Computer Vision –ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6 -12, 2014, Proceedings, Part V 13, 2014, pp. 740 – 755

    2014

  42. [50]

    CSPNet: A new backbone that can enhance learning capability of CNN,

    C.-Y. Wang, H.-Y. M. Liao, Y.-H. Wu, P.-Y. Chen, J.-W. Hsieh, and I.-H. Yeh, “CSPNet: A new backbone that can enhance learning capability of CNN,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, 2020, pp. 390–391

    2020

  43. [51]

    Path aggregation network for instance segmentation,

    S. Liu, L. Qi, H. Qin, J. Shi, and J. Jia, “Path aggregation network for instance segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2018, pp. 8759–8768

    2018

  44. [52]

    Learning non -maximum suppression,

    J. Hosang, R. Benenson, and B. Schiele, “Learning non -maximum suppression,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 4507–4515

    2017

  45. [53]

    Comprehensive Performance Evaluation of YOLOv10, YOLOv9 and YOLOv8 on Detecting and Counting Fruitlet in Complex Orchard Environments,

    R. Sapkota et al. , “Comprehensive Performance Evaluation of YOLOv10, YOLOv9 and YOLOv8 on Detecting and Counting Fruitlet in Complex Orchard Environments,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.12040, 2024

    2024

  46. [54]

    Yolov10 to its genesis: A decadal and comprehensive review of the you only look once series,

    R. Sapkota et al., “Yolov10 to its genesis: A decadal and comprehensive review of the you only look once series,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19407, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Optimizing High-Throughput Inference on Graph Neural Networks at Shared Computing Facilities with the NVIDIA Triton Inference Server,

    C. Savard et al., “Optimizing High-Throughput Inference on Graph Neural Networks at Shared Computing Facilities with the NVIDIA Triton Inference Server,” Comput Softw Big Sci, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2024

    2024

  48. [56]

    Phi-3 technical report: A highly capable language model locally on your phone,

    M. Abdin et al., “Phi-3 technical report: A highly capable language model locally on your phone,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14219, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Selective kernel networks,

    X. Li, W. Wang, X. Hu, and J. Yang, “Selective kernel networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2019, pp. 510–519

    2019

  50. [58]

    YOLOv5, YOLOv8 and YOLOv10: The Go-To Detectors for Real-time Vision,

    M. Hussain, “YOLOv5, YOLOv8 and YOLOv10: The Go-To Detectors for Real-time Vision,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02988, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Creating large language model applications utilizing langchain: A primer on developing llm apps fast,

    O. Topsakal and T. C. Akinci, “Creating large language model applications utilizing langchain: A primer on developing llm apps fast,” in International Conference on Applied Engineering and Natural Sciences , 2023, pp. 1050–1056

    2023

  52. [60]

    Alpagasus: Training a better alpaca with fewer data,

    L. Chen et al., “ Alpagasus: Training a better alpaca with fewer data,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08701, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Foundations of JSON schema,

    F. Pezoa, J. L. Reutter, F. Suarez, M. Ugarte, and D. Vrgoč, “Foundations of JSON schema,” in Proceedings of the 25th international conference on World Wide Web, 2016, pp. 263–273

    2016

  54. [62]

    Unveiling LLM Evaluation Focused on Metrics: Challenges and Solutions,

    T. Hu and X.-H. Zhou, “Unveiling LLM Evaluation Focused on Metrics: Challenges and Solutions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09135, 2024

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.