mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Camera trap classification with deep learning under ground truth uncertainty

arXiv 2608.30789 ↗First posted 31 Aug 2026cs.CVcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Supervised deep learning methods enable the rapid processing of ecological image data, but depend on a costly annotation process. Consequently, training labels are commonly derived from volunteer citizen science projects. However, disagreement among volunteers introduces uncertainty in the "ground truth" data that are assumed to be correct for model training and validation. Using two datasets containing camera trap images with associated volunteer and expert classifications, we investigated the effects of training under higher ground truth uncertainty. We observed improved overall test accuracy, particularly for images that were more difficult for volunteers. Species-level accuracy also generally improved, but generalisation to a different dataset did not. The benefits of ground truth uncertainty were enhanced by pre-training on ImageNet. Pre-training also reduced the number of training epochs required; further reductions in computational cost, but not gains in accuracy, resulted from additional pre-training on other camera trap images. With unbalanced training data, we still observed a clear benefit of increased ground truth uncertainty for overall accuracy, especially on difficult images. Class imbalance improved accuracy for common species, reduced rare species accuracy, and changed patterns of misclassification to more closely resemble mistakes made by volunteers. Our findings have implications for applying deep learning across ecological image types with multiple labels. Practitioners can improve accuracy, especially on difficult examples, by including moderate levels of label disagreement during training and using models pre-trained on general image data. In addition to improving the use of citizen science-derived labels in model training, our study suggests avenues for more effectively integrating human and deep learning classifications in combined workflows. (abridged)

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Aug 2026.

Builds on

8 of 37 references.

References · 8

  1. 2014ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challengecited by 8,498
  2. 2014How transferable are features in deep neural networks?cited by 1,225
  3. 2019A deep active learning system for species identification and counting in camera trap imagescited by 44
  4. 2016Towards Automatic Wild Animal Monitoring: Identification of Animal Species in Camera-trap Images using Very Deep Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 28
  5. 2024Dataset Difficulty and the Role of Inductive Biascited by 12
  6. 2023Minimum Description Length Clustering to Measure Meaningful Image Complexitycited by 10
  7. 2024Harnessing Artificial Intelligence for Wildlife Conservationcited by 5
  8. 2024Deep learning-based ecological analysis of camera trap images is impacted by training data quality and quantitycited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.