# Effects of model architecture and learning strategies on deep learning-based recognition of activated sludge microscopic images and comparison with quantitative image analysis

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.08570 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.08570/

## 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 (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1512.03385/) (2015)
- [An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.11929/) (2020)
- [A Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Visual Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.05709/) (2020)
- [Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1503.02531/) (2015)
- [Momentum Contrast for Unsupervised Visual Representation Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.05722/) (2019)
- [Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.02391/) (2016)
- [A ConvNet for the 2020s](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.03545/) (2022)
- [Exploring Simple Siamese Representation Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.10566/) (2020)
- [Vision Transformers Need Registers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.16588/) (2023)
- [Multimodal Foundation Models: From Specialists to General-Purpose Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.10020/) (2023)
- [Eigen-CAM: Class Activation Map using Principal Components](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2008.00299/) (2020)

## 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.