Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 45 references

Categorical Keypoint Positional Embedding for Robust Animal Re-Identification

T0 review · 5 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 Propagated keypoints lift animal re-ID accuracy by up to 50.1 percent.

desk verdict Promising keypoint-propagation idea undermined by a comparison table with one baseline and an ambiguous accuracy metric. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00818 v1 pith:7ULOTJ5I submitted 2024-12-01 cs.CV

Yuhao Lin , Lingqiao Liu , Javen Shi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords animalre-identificationkeypointpropagationdiffusionmodelcorrespondencesVisionTransformercategoricalpositionalembeddingwildlifedatasetssemantickeypointsGPT-4selection
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 tries to show that animal re-identification—matching photographs of the same individual across camera traps—can be made both more accurate and far cheaper to annotate. It proposes a pipeline that uses one human- or LLM-annotated image per species, propagates those keypoints to every other image through a pre-trained diffusion model, and then injects the keypoint locations and their semantic categories into a Vision Transformer via trainable embeddings. Across four wildlife benchmarks the authors report accuracy gains over the previous state of the art ranging from +5.9 to +50.1 percentage points. If the result holds, ecologists could deploy species-agnostic ReID with minimal manual labeling.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is keypoint propagation through emergent diffusion correspondence, combined with Categorical Keypoint Positional Embedding (CKPE). A single reference image's keypoints, selected by GPT-4, are located in every other image by taking the argmax of cosine similarity between the reference keypoint's diffusion feature vector and the target image's diffusion feature map. The resulting keypoint locations are encoded as one-hot masks over ViT patches in Keypoint Positional Embedding (KPE) and, per keypoint category, as a second one-hot axis in CKPE; learned matrices project each mask into the embedding dimension and the vectors are added to the patch features. These additions let the ViT attend to semantically labeled anatomical locations without any per-image keypoint supervision.

What would settle it

Annotate a held-out sample from the four datasets with expert keypoint locations and measure the distance between each diffusion-propagated keypoint and the true landmark; if a substantial fraction land more than one ViT patch width away, the correspondence assumption that carries the accuracy gains is violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that keypoint information, obtained without per-image annotation, substantially improves animal re-identification when encoded as positional and categorical embeddings in a Vision Transformer. Keypoints are chosen once per dataset by GPT-4 and then propagated to all images by matching diffusion-model features: for each keypoint in the reference image, the location in a target image is the argmax of cosine similarity between the reference keypoint feature vector and the target feature map. These locations are turned into one-hot patch masks, embedded through learned matrices, and added to ViT patch features; the categorical variant uses a separate one-hot axis per keypoint type such as left eye, right eye, or nose. The trained model matches query images to gallery images by cosine similarity of the [CLS] token. The authors report accuracies of 99.6% on MacaqueFaces, 91.1% on Giraffe, 90.3% on IPandas, and 83.4% on CTai, exceeding the WildlifeDatasets baseline by 6.2, 50.1, 21.0, and 24.2 points respectively.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline's load-bearing premise is that diffusion-feature cosine similarity puts each propagated keypoint on the same anatomical landmark in every image, a premise the paper never tests directly since it reports only end-to-end ReID accuracy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported gains hold, wildlife ReID can be deployed with only one manually annotated image per species, cutting annotation cost by orders of magnitude.
  • Keypoint categories such as left eye versus nose provide a semantic axis that helps the ViT separate individuals, and ablation results show the categorical variant consistently beats purely positional keypoints.
  • The method is species-agnostic: the same GPT-4-plus-diffusion keypoint pipeline, without retraining the propagation step, is applied to macaques, giraffes, pandas, and chimpanzees.
  • Because the keypoint embeddings operate on patch tokens, the approach scales with ViT size, with the largest gains on the smallest ViT-Base model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The propagation mechanism is not tied to GPT-4 or to Stable Diffusion specifically; any vision-language model that can name landmarks and any self-supervised correspondence model could plausibly replace them, which is a testable extension.
  • The same one-shot keypoint propagation plus categorical embedding recipe could transfer to other fine-grained instance-recognition tasks, such as identifying individual humans from non-frontal views or matching animals in camera-trap sequences.
  • The paper's causal story, that semantic keypoints rather than mere points drive the gains, would be strengthened by measuring keypoint localization accuracy directly; the current evidence is end-to-end accuracy only.
  • If diffusion features are what make propagation work, the choice of diffusion timestep matters; the authors find timesteps 0-300 work best, suggesting that coarse semantic features, not fine details, carry the correspondence.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a pipeline for animal re-identification in which GPT-4 selects a small set of discriminative keypoints on a single image, a pre-trained Stable Diffusion model propagates those keypoints across the dataset, and the resulting keypoint locations are injected into a Vision Transformer through Keypoint Positional Embedding (KPE) or Categorical Keypoint Positional Embedding (CKPE). The authors report large accuracy gains over a single toolkit baseline on MacaqueFaces, Giraffe, IPandas, and CTai, and they present ablations on keypoint source, diffusion timestep, ViT scale, keypoint count, and random-point controls.

Significance. If the reported results are reliable, the proposed low-annotation keypoint propagation mechanism would be a practically valuable contribution to wildlife ReID, where manual keypoint annotation is expensive. The idea of using diffusion-feature correspondence for keypoint propagation is timely, and the KPE/CKPE embedding is simple and interpretable. However, the manuscript currently does not establish its central claim: the evaluation is limited to a single toolkit baseline, the accuracy metric is not defined in a way consistent with the retrieval protocol, and the ablation tables contain internal inconsistencies. The paper contains no machine-checked proofs or released code, so the contribution rests entirely on the unvalidated experimental numbers.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.1] The evaluation metric is not consistent with the testing protocol. Section 4.1 defines Accuracy = (TP+TN)/(TP+TN+FP+FN), which is a binary-classification formula, but Section 3.5 describes a retrieval protocol in which the gallery image with highest cosine similarity to the query is selected. The manuscript never specifies how TP, TN, FP, and FN are counted for a multi-gallery retrieval task, nor how the top-1 decision is converted into these counts. Under a naive pair-counting interpretation the accuracy would be dominated by true negatives and could be high even with poor ranking. The numbers in Table 1 are therefore uninterpretable until the protocol is specified unambiguously; the authors should report Rank-1, Rank-5, or mAP, or explicitly define the binary decision rule.
  2. [§4.2, Table 1] The central claim of outperforming state-of-the-art methods is not supported by the comparison. The only baseline row is 'WildLife Dataset[34]', which is an open-source toolkit baseline, not a published SOTA method. The related work cites specialist methods (e.g., ATRW [17], Miele et al. [22]) and recent general approaches (e.g., 'Toward re-identifying any animal' [12], PetFace [31]), but none of these are included in Table 1. Consequently, the values described as 'previous SOTA' (e.g., 41.0% on Giraffe) are not established as SOTA, and the claimed improvements of +5.9% to +50.1% are not calibrated against the methods the paper itself identifies as relevant prior work. New experiments with published SOTA methods under an identical, clearly defined protocol are required.
  3. [§5.3 and §5.4, Tables 4 and 5] The ablation tables contain an internal inconsistency that undermines the keypoint-ablation claims. Table 4 reports that ViT-Base without keypoints achieves 92.5%, while Table 5 reports 97.3% for the 'NO keypoint' condition on the same dataset and presumably the same settings. If these are different experimental configurations, that must be stated; if they are intended to be the same, one of the tables is wrong. This discrepancy matters because the paper uses these numbers to argue that keypoints improve performance, and a 4.8-point difference in the baseline changes the size of the claimed improvement. In addition, no error bars or repeated runs are reported anywhere, so differences of 0.3–0.6 points in Tables 2–7 cannot be distinguished from noise.
  4. [§3.4] The categorical embedding equation is dimensionally unclear. The paper defines CMI = OneHot(PI) ∈ R^{(K+1)×Nc} and then states CMI · Wckp ∈ R^d. If CMI is a matrix of shape (K+1) × Nc and Wckp is Nc × d, the product is a matrix of shape (K+1) × d, not a vector in R^d. If the intended operation is a sum or mean over keypoints or patches, that operation is not specified. The same issue affects the KPE description in Section 3.3, where multiple keypoints would produce multiple mask vectors but the aggregation into a single additive embedding is not defined. The architecture is not fully specified without this detail.
  5. [§3.2] The keypoint propagation step, which is the foundation of the method, is never validated against keypoint ground truth. The paper claims that cosine similarity between diffusion features 'ensures consistent keypoint localization even when faced with varying poses, occlusions, and environmental conditions', but no keypoint localization accuracy, correspondence accuracy, or visual evaluation is reported. Since the KPE and CKPE embeddings depend entirely on the propagated keypoints, a failure of propagation would directly affect the ReID results. The authors should measure keypoint localization quality (e.g., PCK) or at least provide a quantitative analysis of propagation failures across the four datasets before the mechanism can be considered supported.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and §1] The claimed improvement range '+5.9% to +50.1%' does not match Table 1: the smallest gap in Table 1 is 6.2% (MacaqueFaces) and the largest is 50.1% (Giraffe). The range should be corrected or the source of the 5.9% figure should be explained.
  2. [§5.2] The sentence 'aligning with similar findings reported in []' contains an empty citation; the reference is missing.
  3. [§5.3, Table 4] The text states that both KPE and CKPE 'consistently improve performance across all ViT scales'. At ViT-Base, CKPE (97.3%) is lower than KPE (98.5%), so the wording 'consistently improve' should be qualified to describe the comparison against the no-keypoint baseline rather than between KPE and CKPE.
  4. [§5.4, Table 5] The table header 'NO keypoint 1 3 6 10' is ambiguous: it is not clear from the caption whether the first column is the no-keypoint baseline or whether the columns correspond to different numbers of keypoints for each ViT scale. The table should be relabeled.
  5. [§3.2] The section title contains a typo: 'Propagration' should be 'Propagation'.
  6. [§1] The sentence 'we will made our codebase, datasets, and detailed annotations publicly available' is grammatically incorrect and should be rewritten. Also, the promised code/data releases are not currently available, so the reproducibility claim cannot be verified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: CKPE's reported gains are empirical test-set measurements; no fitted parameter or self-citation chain forces the claimed accuracy numbers.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—CKPE outperforms SOTA with accuracy gains from +5.9% to +50.1%—is an empirical result measured on held-out identities under an 80/20 split, not derived from the method's own equations. The keypoints are obtained from GPT-4 and a pre-trained Stable Diffusion model, neither of which is trained on the test identities, and the ViT backbone is fine-tuned only on the training split. KPE and CKPE are additive input embeddings that encode keypoint locations and categories, but they do not encode identity labels or the reported accuracy, so there is no self-definitional reduction. The only co-authored citation, reference [12], appears in related work and is descriptive, not load-bearing. Concerns that a skeptical reader might raise—the comparison being limited to the WildlifeDatasets toolkit rather than published SOTA, the unstated mapping from retrieval ranking to the TP/TN accuracy formula, and the absence of error bars—are evaluation-validity issues rather than circularity, because none of them shows that a reported number is equivalent to an input by construction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on choices of loss weight, keypoint count, diffusion timestep, and ViT scale that are set empirically without sensitivity analysis or error bars. These are the free parameters. The main domain assumptions are that GPT-4 and Stable Diffusion generalize across species, and that the [CLS] representation transfers to unseen identities.

free parameters (4)
  • Loss balance lambda (λ) = 0.2
    Section 4.1 states 'λ in L is set to 0.2 empirically.' No sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Number of keypoints N = 3 (main experiments)
    The GPT-4 prompt in Figure 3 asks for 3 keypoints, and the main results use CKPE with this setting. The ablation in Table 5 shows 1 keypoint often performs best, so the choice is not clearly justified.
  • Diffusion timestep for keypoint propagation = not reported for main experiments
    Table 3 ablates the timestep, but Section 4.1 does not specify which timestep or range was used to generate the keypoints for the main results.
  • ViT scale for main results = huge (inferred)
    The MacaqueFaces accuracy of 99.6% in Table 1 matches the ViT-Huge CKPE row in Table 4, yet Section 5 says 'default size of ViT is large,' creating ambiguity about the main configuration.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Stable Diffusion feature correspondences transfer across individuals and species for keypoint propagation.
    Section 3.2 relies on this to propagate keypoints; the paper cites [33] and [11] but does not validate the correspondence accuracy on any of the four datasets.
  • domain assumption GPT-4 can identify discriminative keypoints from a single image for each species.
    Section 3.2 uses GPT-4 to pick keypoints; Table 2 evaluates this only on MacaqueFaces, not on giraffes, pandas, or chimpanzees.
  • domain assumption The [CLS] token representation trained with keypoint embeddings generalizes to unseen identities at test time.
    The whole ReID evaluation depends on this, but no analysis of feature distribution shift is provided.
invented entities (1)
  • Categorical keypoint mask (CMI)
    purpose: Encodes the category of each keypoint (e.g., left eye, right eye, nose) as a one-hot signal added to ViT patch features.
    Introduced in Section 3.4; its utility is only supported by the paper's own tables. The equation defining CMI has inconsistent dimensions, so the construct as written is not mathematically well-defined.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Categorical Keypoint Positional Embedding for Robust Animal Re-Identification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7ULOTJ5I

@misc{pith2026241200818,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Categorical Keypoint Positional Embedding for Robust Animal Re-Identification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7ULOTJ5I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00818}
}
read the original abstract

Animal re-identification (ReID) has become an indispensable tool in ecological research, playing a critical role in tracking population dynamics, analyzing behavioral patterns, and assessing ecological impacts, all of which are vital for informed conservation strategies. Unlike human ReID, animal ReID faces significant challenges due to the high variability in animal poses, diverse environmental conditions, and the inability to directly apply pre-trained models to animal data, making the identification process across species more complex. This work introduces an innovative keypoint propagation mechanism, which utilizes a single annotated image and a pre-trained diffusion model to propagate keypoints across an entire dataset, significantly reducing the cost of manual annotation. Additionally, we enhance the Vision Transformer (ViT) by implementing Keypoint Positional Encoding (KPE) and Categorical Keypoint Positional Embedding (CKPE), enabling the ViT to learn more robust and semantically-aware representations. This provides more comprehensive and detailed keypoint representations, leading to more accurate and efficient re-identification. Our extensive experimental evaluations demonstrate that this approach significantly outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods across four wildlife datasets. The code will be publicly released.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00818 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of model performance between the pre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of keypoint similarity heatmaps between a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Architecture Overview of Our Proposed Categorical Keypoint Positional Embedding for Wild Animal ReID: Initially, GPT-4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [32]

    Keypoint promptable re-identification

    Vladimir Somers, Alexandre Alahi, and Christophe De Vleeschouwer. Keypoint promptable re-identification. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 216–233. Springer, 2025. 1, 3

    work page 2025

  2. [34]

    WildlifeDatasets: An Open-Source Toolkit for Animal Re-Identification

    V ojtˇech ˇCerm´ak, Luk´aˇs Picek, Luk´aˇs Adam, and Kostas Pa- pafitsoros. WildlifeDatasets: An Open-Source Toolkit for Animal Re-Identification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), pages 5953–5963, 2024. 2, 6, 7

    work page 2024

  3. [17]

    Atrw: a benchmark for amur tiger re-identification in the wild

    Shuyuan Li, Jianguo Li, Hanlin Tang, Rui Qian, and Weiyao Lin. Atrw: a benchmark for amur tiger re-identification in the wild. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.05586, 2019. 1, 2

    arXiv 1906

  4. [22]

    Revisiting animal photo-identification using deep metric learning and network analysis

    Vincent Miele, Gaspard Dussert, Bruno Spataro, Simon Chamaill´e-Jammes, Dominique Allain´e, and Christophe Bo- nenfant. Revisiting animal photo-identification using deep metric learning and network analysis. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 12(5):863–873, 2021. 6

    work page 2021

  5. [12]

    Toward re- identifying any animal.Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, 36, 2024

    Bingliang Jiao, Lingqiao Liu, Liying Gao, Ruiqi Wu, Gu- osheng Lin, Peng Wang, and Yanning Zhang. Toward re- identifying any animal.Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, 36, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  6. [31]

    Petface: A large- scale dataset and benchmark for animal identification

    Risa Shinoda and Kaede Shiohara. Petface: A large- scale dataset and benchmark for animal identification. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 19–36. Springer, 2025. 2

    work page 2025

  7. [1]

    An improved deep learning architecture for person re-identification

    Ejaz Ahmed, Michael Jones, and Tim K Marks. An improved deep learning architecture for person re-identification. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3908–3916, 2015. 2

    work page 2015

  8. [2]

    Deep vit features as dense visual descriptors

    Shir Amir, Yossi Gandelsman, Shai Bagon, and Tali Dekel. Deep vit features as dense visual descriptors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.05814, 2(3):4, 2021. 3

    arXiv 2021

Show all 45 references
  1. [3]

    On the effectiveness of vit features as local semantic descrip- tors

    Shir Amir, Yossi Gandelsman, Shai Bagon, and Tali Dekel. On the effectiveness of vit features as local semantic descrip- tors. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 39–55. Springer, 2022. 3

    2022

  2. [4]

    Individual common dolphin identification via metric embedding learning

    Soren Bouma, Matthew DM Pawley, Krista Hupman, and Andrew Gilman. Individual common dolphin identification via metric embedding learning. In2018 international confer- ence on image and vision computing New Zealand (IVCNZ), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2018. 2

    2018

  3. [5]

    Ad- vanced image recognition: a fully automated, high-accuracy photo-identification matching system for humpback whales

    Ted Cheeseman, Ken Southerland, Jinmo Park, Marilia Olio, Kiirsten Flynn, John Calambokidis, Lindsey Jones, Claire Garrigue, Astrid Frisch Jord´an, Addison Howard, et al. Ad- vanced image recognition: a fully automated, high-accuracy photo-identification matching system for hu...

    2022

  4. [6]

    Hotspot- ter—patterned species instance recognition

    Jonathan P Crall, Charles V Stewart, Tanya Y Berger-Wolf, Daniel I Rubenstein, and Siva R Sundaresan. Hotspot- ter—patterned species instance recognition. In 2013 IEEE workshop on applications of computer vision (WACV), pages 230–237. IEEE, 2013. 1

    2013

  5. [7]

    Chim- panzee faces in the wild: Log-euclidean cnns for predict- ing identities and attributes of primates

    Alexander Freytag, Erik Rodner, Marcel Simon, Alexan- der Loos, Hjalmar S K ¨uhl, and Joachim Denzler. Chim- panzee faces in the wild: Log-euclidean cnns for predict- ing identities and attributes of primates. In Pattern Recogni- tion: 38th German Conference, GCPR 2016, Hannov...

    2016

  6. [8]

    Applying computer-aided photo-identification to messy datasets: a case study of t hornicroft’s giraffe (g iraffa camelopardalis thornicrofti)

    Kelly M Halloran, James D Murdoch, and Matthew S Becker. Applying computer-aided photo-identification to messy datasets: a case study of t hornicroft’s giraffe (g iraffa camelopardalis thornicrofti). African Journal of Ecology, 53 (2):147–155, 2015. 2

    2015

  7. [9]

    Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual rep- resentation learning

    Kaiming He, Haoqi Fan, Yuxin Wu, Saining Xie, and Ross Girshick. Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual rep- resentation learning. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9729–9738, 2020. 3

    2020

  8. [10]

    Transreid: Transformer-based object re- identification

    Shuting He, Hao Luo, Pichao Wang, Fan Wang, Hao Li, and Wei Jiang. Transreid: Transformer-based object re- identification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 15013–15022, 2021. 3

    2021

  9. [11]

    Unsupervised semantic correspondence using stable diffu- sion

    Eric Hedlin, Gopal Sharma, Shweta Mahajan, Hossam Isack, Abhishek Kar, Andrea Tagliasacchi, and Kwang Moo Yi. Unsupervised semantic correspondence using stable diffu- sion. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36, 2024. 3

    2024

  10. [13]

    Individual minke whale recogni- tion using deep learning convolutional neural networks

    Dmitry A Konovalov, Suzanne Hillcoat, Genevieve Williams, R Alastair Birtles, Naomi Gardiner, and Matthew I Curnock. Individual minke whale recogni- tion using deep learning convolutional neural networks. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection , 6: 25–36, 2018. 2

    2018

  11. [14]

    Pifpaf: Composite fields for human pose estimation

    Sven Kreiss, Lorenzo Bertoni, and Alexandre Alahi. Pifpaf: Composite fields for human pose estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11977–11986, 2019. 1

    2019

  12. [15]

    Biometric animal databases from field photographs: identifi- cation of individual zebra in the wild

    Mayank Lahiri, Chayant Tantipathananandh, Rosemary Warungu, Daniel I Rubenstein, and Tanya Y Berger-Wolf. Biometric animal databases from field photographs: identifi- cation of individual zebra in the wild. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM international conference on multimedia r...

    2011

  13. [16]

    Pyramidal trans- former with conv-patchify for person re-identification

    He Li, Mang Ye, Cong Wang, and Bo Du. Pyramidal trans- former with conv-patchify for person re-identification. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 7317–7326, 2022. 3

    2022

  14. [18]

    Deep- reid: Deep filter pairing neural network for person re- identification

    Wei Li, Rui Zhao, Tong Xiao, and Xiaogang Wang. Deep- reid: Deep filter pairing neural network for person re- identification. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 152–159,

  15. [19]

    Diverse part discovery: Occluded per- son re-identification with part-aware transformer

    Yulin Li, Jianfeng He, Tianzhu Zhang, Xiang Liu, Yongdong Zhang, and Feng Wu. Diverse part discovery: Occluded per- son re-identification with part-aware transformer. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2898–2907, 2021. 3

    2021

  16. [20]

    Per- son re-identification by local maximal occurrence represen- tation and metric learning

    Shengcai Liao, Yang Hu, Xiangyu Zhu, and Stan Z Li. Per- son re-identification by local maximal occurrence represen- tation and metric learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 2197–2206, 2015. 2

    2015

  17. [21]

    Comparison of photo-matching algorithms commonly used for photographic capture–recapture studies

    Maximilian Matth ´e, Marco Sannolo, Kristopher Winiarski, Annemarieke Spitzen-van der Sluijs, Daniel Goedbloed, Se- bastian Steinfartz, and Ulrich Stachow. Comparison of photo-matching algorithms commonly used for photographic capture–recapture studies. Ecology and evolution ,...

    2017

  18. [23]

    Robust re- identification of manta rays from natural markings by learn- ing pose invariant embeddings

    Olga Moskvyak, Frederic Maire, Feras Dayoub, Asia O Armstrong, and Mahsa Baktashmotlagh. Robust re- identification of manta rays from natural markings by learn- ing pose invariant embeddings. In 2021 Digital Image Com- puting: Techniques and Applications (DICTA) , pages 1–8. I...

    2021

  19. [24]

    Automatically identifying, count- ing, and describing wild animals in camera-trap images with deep learning

    Mohammad Sadegh Norouzzadeh, Anh Nguyen, Margaret Kosmala, Alexandra Swanson, Meredith S Palmer, Craig Packer, and Jeff Clune. Automatically identifying, count- ing, and describing wild animals in camera-trap images with deep learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sc...

    2018

  20. [25]

    Zero-shot image-to-image translation

    Gaurav Parmar, Krishna Kumar Singh, Richard Zhang, Yijun Li, Jingwan Lu, and Jun-Yan Zhu. Zero-shot image-to-image translation. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceed- ings, pages 1–11, 2023. 3

    2023

  21. [26]

    Deep learn- ing methods for multi-species animal re-identification and tracking–a survey

    Prashanth C Ravoor and TSB Sudarshan. Deep learn- ing methods for multi-species animal re-identification and tracking–a survey. Computer Science Review , 38:100289,

  22. [27]

    Similarity learning networks for animal individual re- identification: an ecological perspective

    Stefan Schneider, Graham W Taylor, and Stefan C Kre- mer. Similarity learning networks for animal individual re- identification: an ecological perspective. Mammalian Biol- ogy, 102(3):899–914, 2022. 1

    2022

  23. [28]

    More aggressive sea turtles win fights over foraging resources independent of body size and years of presence

    Gail Schofield, Kostas Papafitsoros, Chloe Chapman, Akanksha Shah, Lucy Westover, Liam CD Dickson, and Kostas A Katselidis. More aggressive sea turtles win fights over foraging resources independent of body size and years of presence. Animal Behaviour, 190:209–219, 2022. 1

    2022

  24. [29]

    Laion-5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models

    Christoph Schuhmann, Romain Beaumont, Richard Vencu, Cade Gordon, Ross Wightman, Mehdi Cherti, Theo Coombes, Aarush Katta, Clayton Mullis, Mitchell Worts- man, et al. Laion-5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models. Advances in Neural In- f...

    2022

  25. [30]

    Petface: A large-scale dataset and benchmark for animal identification

    Risa Shinoda and Kaede Shiohara. Petface: A large-scale dataset and benchmark for animal identification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.13555, 2024. 6

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Emergent correspondence from image diffusion

    Luming Tang, Menglin Jia, Qianqian Wang, Cheng Perng Phoo, and Bharath Hariharan. Emergent correspondence from image diffusion. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neu- ral Information Processing Systems, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  27. [35]

    Perspectives on individual animal identification from biology and computer vision

    Maxime Vidal, Nathan Wolf, Beth Rosenberg, Bradley P Harris, and Alexander Mathis. Perspectives on individual animal identification from biology and computer vision. In- tegrative and comparative biology, 61(3):900–916, 2021. 1

    2021

  28. [36]

    Giant panda identifica- tion

    Le Wang, Rizhi Ding, Yuanhao Zhai, Qilin Zhang, Wei Tang, Nanning Zheng, and Gang Hua. Giant panda identifica- tion. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 30:2837– 2849, 2021. 2, 6

    2021

  29. [37]

    Pose-guided feature disentangling for occluded person re-identification based on transformer

    Tao Wang, Hong Liu, Pinhao Song, Tianyu Guo, and Wei Shi. Pose-guided feature disentangling for occluded person re-identification based on transformer. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, pages 2540–2549,

  30. [38]

    Ex- tracting identifying contours for african elephants and hump- back whales using a learned appearance model

    Hendrik Weideman, Chuck Stewart, Jason Parham, Jason Holmberg, Kiirsten Flynn, John Calambokidis, D Barry Paul, Anka Bedetti, Michelle Henley, Frank Pope, et al. Ex- tracting identifying contours for african elephants and hump- back whales using a learned appearance model. In ...

    2020

  31. [39]

    In- tegral curvature representation and matching algorithms for identification of dolphins and whales

    Hendrik J Weideman, Zachary M Jablons, Jason Holmberg, Kiirsten Flynn, John Calambokidis, Reny B Tyson, Jason B Allen, Randall S Wells, Krista Hupman, Kim Urian, et al. In- tegral curvature representation and matching algorithms for identification of dolphins and whales. In Pr...

    2017

  32. [40]

    Automated face recognition of rhesus macaques

    Claire L Witham. Automated face recognition of rhesus macaques. Journal of neuroscience methods, 300:157–165,

  33. [41]

    Person re-identification using kernel-based metric learning methods

    Fei Xiong, Mengran Gou, Octavia Camps, and Mario Sz- naier. Person re-identification using kernel-based metric learning methods. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part VII 13, pages 1–16. Springer, 2014. 2

    2014

  34. [42]

    Transformer for object re- identification: A survey

    Mang Ye, Shuoyi Chen, Chenyue Li, Wei-Shi Zheng, David Crandall, and Bo Du. Transformer for object re- identification: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.06960,

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Hat: Hierarchical aggregation transformers for person re-identification

    Guowen Zhang, Pingping Zhang, Jinqing Qi, and Huchuan Lu. Hat: Hierarchical aggregation transformers for person re-identification. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM interna- tional conference on multimedia, pages 516–525, 2021. 3

    2021

  36. [44]

    Yakreid-103: A benchmark for yak re- identification

    Tingting Zhang, Qijun Zhao, Cuo Da, Liyuan Zhou, Lei Li, and Suonan Jiancuo. Yakreid-103: A benchmark for yak re- identification. In 2021 IEEE International Joint Conference on Biometrics (IJCB), pages 1–8. IEEE, 2021. 2

    2021

  37. [45]

    Dual cross-attention learning for fine-grained visual categorization and object re-identification

    Haowei Zhu, Wenjing Ke, Dong Li, Ji Liu, Lu Tian, and Yi Shan. Dual cross-attention learning for fine-grained visual categorization and object re-identification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4692–4702, 2022. 3

    2022

Pith tools

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