Effects of model architecture and learning strategies on deep learning-based recognition of activated sludge microscopic images and comparison with quantitative image analysis
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Microscopic image analysis has long been recognized as a promising approach for monitoring activated sludge. In recent years, deep learning-based image analysis has been increasingly adopted in this field because of its high performance. However, previous studies on microscopic image analysis of activated sludge have rarely explored transformer-based models or self-supervised foundation models and have instead relied on CNNs and supervised ImageNet pretraining. In addition, previous studies often downsampled image sizes, but the effects of downsampling have not been sufficiently investigated, and the relationship between downsampling strategies and image analysis performance remains unclear. Furthermore, no study has quantitatively compared deep learning performance with quantitative image analysis (QIA), which was widely used before the emergence of deep learning. In this study, to examine how model architecture and learning strategies affect performance in microscopic image analysis of activated sludge and to quantitatively determine whether deep learning outperforms QIA, we prepared three types of activated sludge samples, classified their microscopic images, and evaluated classification accuracy. Our results showed that transformer-based architectures and alternative pretraining methods were effective in terms of classification accuracy. Our downsampling analysis showed that using overly small images reduced accuracy, but increasing image size beyond a certain point did not improve it further. In addition, the analysis indicated that, to achieve high classification accuracy, maintaining the field of view was a more effective downsampling strategy than maintaining resolution. Finally, our comparison between deep learning and QIA showed that deep learning outperformed QIA in terms of accuracy.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Sep 2026.
Builds on
11 of 36 references.
References · 11
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
- 2020A Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Visual Representationscited by 12,049
- 2015Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Networkcited by 10,324
- 2019Momentum Contrast for Unsupervised Visual Representation Learningcited by 7,513
- 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,733
- 2022A ConvNet for the 2020scited by 3,579
- 2020Exploring Simple Siamese Representation Learningcited by 2,866
- 2023Vision Transformers Need Registerscited by 871
- 2023Multimodal Foundation Models: From Specialists to General-Purpose Assistantscited by 247
- 2020Eigen-CAM: Class Activation Map using Principal Componentscited by 189
Built on by
Not cited yet.