Measurement: Sensors 25 (2023) 100611

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Measurement: Sensors
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/measurement-sensors

Animal image identification and classification using deep neural

networks techniques
Thirupathi Battu a, *, D. Sreenivasa Reddy Lakshmi b
a
Department of Computer Science & Engineering, University College of Engineering(A), OsmaniaUniversity Hyderabad, Telangana, India
b
Department of Information Technology, Chaitanya Bharathi Institute of Technology(A), Affiliated Osmania University Hyderabad, Telangana, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B T R A C T

Keywords: Animal identification research, there haven’t been many effective methods introduced, especially in the area of
Animal detection and classification predator species. In this article, we provide a reliable learning strategy for categorising animals from camera-trap
Feature learning photos captured in naturally inhabited areas with high densities of people and noise. To deal with noisy labels,
Image modalities
we offered two distinct network architectures—one with clean samples and the other without. We separate the
Deep neural networks
training data into groups with various properties using k-means clustering. Then, other networks are trained
using these groupings. Then, using maximum voting, these more diverse networks are used to jointly forecast or
correct sample labels. We test the effectiveness of the suggested method using two publicly accessible camera-
trap picture datasets, Snapshot Serengeti and Panama-Netherlands. Our findings show that our method is
more accurate and surpasses state-of-the-art techniques for classifying animal species from camera-trap photos
with high levels of label noise.

1. Introduction
According to statistics from 2017, up to five million individuals in
the United States are assaulted by animals each year. According to
Langley & Morrow, up to two million animal bites occur in the United
States each year. Depending on where you live, animal attacks happen
more or less often. A term used in slang to describe an animal that uses
humans as a form of prey is "man-eater." For instance, tigers are reported
to have killed more people than any other animal of their kind [1,2].
They are more likely than any other wild animal to directly attack a
person, according to Nowak et al. On the other hand, man-eating lions
have been seen invading human settlements both during the day and at
night in order to find victims. According to American and Tanzanian
specialists, there was a significant increase in man-eating incidents in
Tanzania’s rural areas between 1990 and 2005. At least 563 locals were
attacked at this period, and many victims were eaten. According to
Warrel, thousands of humans suffer fatal injuries each year as a result of
animal attacks [3]. Though it does not seem that every government does
so, they keep records of animal-related deaths. The majority of animals,
with the exception of tigers, do not actively seek out humans, while
certain species may prey on the unconscious, ill, or dead. Animals may
attack humans, livestock, and pets when they get used to people or when
they are badly malnourished. Attacks seem to happen more often at
night when animals leave their territory in quest of food. There is no
predator animal detector mentioned in the literature. In this study, an
image processing technology is utilised to propose a way for identifying
the species of animals. This method is then tested using a dataset that
includes pets and predators. The classification results are then evaluated
and debated in terms of accuracy [4].
One of the fundamental notions in computer vision is that the initial
goal is to "understand the picture," which leads to a constant increase in
the requirement to grasp the high-level meaning of things when it comes
to object recognition and image identification. The field has exploded in
popularity as a key visual talent required by computer vision systems. As
so many individuals and computers extract large quantities of infor­
mation from photos, images have become ubiquitous in a number of
sectors [5].
Automation, schools, self-driving vehicles, tracking, and the con­
struction of 3D model representations all need knowledge that might be
crucial. While the above-mentioned applications vary in a variety of
ways, they all follow the same procedure of annotating a picture with
one or more labels that correspond to a set of classes or categories.
Object identification is the name given to this procedure, and it has
become a popular study topic in the area due to the focus on

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ramdasv786sap@gmail.com (T. Battu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measen.2022.100611
Received 24 October 2022; Received in revised form 16 November 2022; Accepted 25 November 2022
Available online 21 December 2022
2665-9174/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
T. Battu and D.S. Reddy Lakshmi
understanding what a picture represents. An extensive body of research
has been done on object detection and identification using image pro­
cessing. The objective of this project is to develop a system that enables
researchers studying animal and floral flora as well as wildlife photog­
raphers to recognise and differentiate wild creatures and flowers auto­
matically [6,7]. The crucial problem of animal detection and
identification hasn’t gotten much attention. The aim of this project is to
develop a system that will help wildlife photographers and researchers
who study animal behavior [8,9].
The technology used in this work might be improved for uses in
safety, monitoring, and other areas. One of the most challenging genres
of photography is considered to be wildlife photography. It needs strong
technical skills, such precise capturing.Photographers of wild animals
often need a high level of technical skill as well as a great deal of
patience. Some animals, for example, are difficult to approach, thus
understanding their behaviour is necessary to anticipate their activities.
Photographers must sometimes stay calm and silent for many hours until
the exact moment arrives. Photographing some animals may need
stalking skills or the use of a hide-and-seek device. A stunning wild life
shot is also the result of being in the right spot at the right moment.
Fig. 1. Samples of camera-trap images training data sets diluted with noisy labels. The red box is the noisy label while the green box is the clean label. (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
2
Measurement: Sensors 25 (2023) 100611
Because of the high demands of the job, it is excessively expensive, and
the company’s survival may be jeopardized [9,10]. Animal researchers
often go to isolated regions all around the globe. In the life of a
photographer, hostile situations are frequently the norm. Some people
may wait for hours on end before capturing a photo worth selling. The
photographers must be bold enough to remain in a hazardous situation
comfortably and patiently until the animals emerge. A ideal situation or
outcome always arrives with fewer disruptions to the animal’s natural
behaviour. Human presence may be quickly detected by the dog due to
their great sensitivity. Because we can’t know what will happen next,
photographers must be prepared to meet any important jungle moment.
The DSLR cameras utilised in the business, on the other hand, are
relatively expensive, and the shutter on-off operation has limitations. As
a result, adequate recognition in such equipment is required. The better
the picture quality, the more memory space is required [11,12]. It also
fosters correct acknowledgment in nature photography. We’ve opted to
remain cautious with this project, focusing just on animals and flowers.
This was chosen at random since collecting animal data to create a
trustworthy database is never an easy undertaking. To arrive at the
probabilistic conclusion and reach the acceptable percentage, we used
T. Battu and D.S. Reddy Lakshmi Measurement: Sensors 25 (2023) 100611

the method of attribute abstraction, segmentation, and thresholding to correct noisy input labels, Veit et al. (2017) developed a label
[13–15]. cleaning network that was supervised by a few clean labels. Han et al.
Animal type identification has not received much attention, espe­ (2018), Jiang et al. (2017), and Ren et al. (2018) have all employed
cially when it comes to predator animals. One instance is identifying a clean validation sets to weight training data [26,27].
certain animal species in a tracking tunnel by capturing its ink footprints
in a particular spot, which is inappropriate in this case since we want to
2.2. Animal classification systems
identify the animal immediately. In order to recognise and follow
moving object blobs in order to identify activities like hunting, re­
2.2.1. Animal breed classification
searchers employed a neural network. However, this study’s objective is
With the rising number of public datasets, FGC is gaining attention. It
to identify the animal before, not during, the hunt. The work presented
is employed when the classes in the dataset have huge inter-class simi­
here does not categorize the traits of the targeted animal, but rather
larity and intra-class variance. Animal breed classification is a problem
employs a background subtraction method to identify them from the
of FGC, and there are three benchmark animal breed datasets to study
backdrop. For the real-time detection and tracking of animals, the au­
the problem of fine-grained animal breed classification. The three
thors of [16,17] presented a modified version of Viola and Jones’
benchmark datasets are Columbia Dogs with Parts (CU), Stanford dogs
Haar-like detector. They devised a method for monitoring and noting the
(SD), and Oxford IIIT-Pet dataset (OX). The literature for animal breed
presence of an animal in a video and retrieved the Haarlike traits of a
classification is categorized based on the benchmark datasets used in the
lion. They only used one animal, despite this. Using machine learning
research [28].
techniques, we offer a unique method for extracting animal features in
this study and separate predators from non-predators [18–20] shown in
2.2.2. Columbia dogs with parts dataset
the Fig. 1.
In this section, we discuss the benchmark CU and the systems that
have used it. The CU dataset includes large real-world dog breeds with a
2. RELATED work
total of 133 classes having 8351 images altogether, and the dataset is
relatively balanced. The dataset was released by researchers at
2.1. Animal monitoring systems
Columbia University in 2012 [29].
The baseline model for the CU dataset is proposed by Liu et al.
In general, animal monitoring systems monitors the animals, their
(2012). The authors proposed a novel fine-grained image classification
movement, and their behaviour. Wildlife researchers developed various
for dog breeds, where the animals share common parts but different in
technologies for monitoring animals. For continuous observation, a
shape and physical characteristics. The idea was to extract the corre­
video monitoring system was mounted on the animals, which was both
sponding parts and classify the breeds based on the extracted parts. The
intrusive and harmful for the animals (Parkhi et al., 2012). Other
main challenge was the variation in the semblance of the corresponding
prominent technologies include very high-frequency radio-tracking
parts of the animals sharing common parts. To find correct corre­
(Kim et al., 2010), GPS tracking (Tomkiewicz et al., 2010), satellite
sponding parts, the authors use the exemplar-based geometric model on
tracking with radio collars (Venkataraman et al., 2005), pyro-electric
the face of the animals. With part correspondence, it is easier to compare
sensors (Hao et al., 2006), wireless sensor networks (Mainwaring
the extracted face descriptors of animals having similar parts. The model
et al., 2002). These intrusive technologies were of little success, as they
also includes parts hierarchy and part localization that varies for
are mostly applicable only for a small geographic area. With the rapid
different dog breeds. The baseline model achieved an accuracy of 67%
technological advancement, the camera trap technology (Wearn and
and concluded that an accurate part localization substantially increases
Glover-Kapfer, 2017) have matured and reached a point where they are
the classification performance. Wang et al. (2014) proposed a dog breed
reliably used as one of the non-intrusive methods to monitor animals
categorization model on the same dataset using statistical techniques.
[21–23].
The model identifies the shape representation using facial landmarks.
Deep networks are somewhat resistant to noise labelling, it should be
Initially, the authors identified eight facial landmarks. The identified
mentioned. The neural networks’ resilience to adversarial samples was
landmarks are projected onto the Grassmann manifold, which will
developed by Szegedy et al. (2013). According to Rolnick et al. (2017), a
represent the geometry of the dog breeds. The shape of the dog is
deep neural network can learn from a large number of noisy labels. They
considered as points on the Grassmann manifold. Based on the equiva­
looked at how batch size and learning rate affected the effectiveness of
lence property, these points are then projected onto the ambient space
the model. Van Horn et al. (2015) claim that as long as the mistake rate
[30].
is not too high, learning techniques based on CNN features and part
localization are resilient to annotation errors and damaged training
data. In this paper, we use a variety of networks to estimate the accurate 2.3. Animal detection systems
label of the input sample, as described by Yuan et al. (2018). We
acknowledge that diversity across these networks is crucial during this 2.3.1. Visible image based systems
joint estimate process in order for various networks to contribute diverse Generally, visible images are most commonly used in animal detec­
insights or knowledge about the input sample. This might enhance the tion and classification systems, as they provide a rich set of features like
performance of joint estimation [24,25]. colour, texture, and many more. Most of the SOTA CNN architectures are
To get over the challenge of learning from noisy labels, there are two trained on large-scale datasets that have visible images. Besides, there
methods. Assuming that clean labels are not accessible, the first method are ample visible image based benchmark camera trap datasets. In this
involves learning directly from noisy labels. With this technique, the section, we categorize the systems based on the camera trap datasets.
input image’s label noise is conditionally isolated (Natarajan et al.,
2013; Sukhbaatar et al., 2014). A label cleaning module, on the other 2.3.1.1. Missouri camera trap dataset. Chen et al. (2014) proposed an
hand, is used to reject or fix samples with inaccurate labels (Brodley and animal detection model for automating the animal monitoring system
Friedl, 1999). The second method instructs the network as it learns from using a deep convolutional neural network. The authors also released
noisy labels using a small number of clean samples and correct labels. In the Missouri camera trap dataset that consists of 20 species of animals
order to increase classification accuracy, this system offers a tiny pro­ commonly found in North America. The multimodal dataset has animals
portion of clean labels that have been confirmed by real individuals. For in colour images, grayscale images, and infrared images. The dataset has
instance, Yuan et al. (2018) monitored and enhanced the deep neural 23,876 images totally, with 14,346 for training and the rest for testing.
network’s learning capacity using a set of 5000 clean samples. In order The authors proposed a baseline model with DCNN and achieved an

3
T. Battu and D.S. Reddy Lakshmi
average accuracy of 38.31% [31].
Zhang et al. (2016) proposed an ensemble coupled graph cut algo­
rithm for segmenting the animals from the highly cluttered Missouri
camera trap images. Using the object verification technique, the
segmented images are verified to find if they belong to the foreground or
background. The proposed segmentation technique for detecting ani­
mals in the image achieved an average precision of 82.93%. Later,
Zhang et al. (2016) proposed spatio-temporal object region proposal for
detecting animals from the highly cluttered camera trap dataset. To
reduce the number of false positives in the previous approach, the au­
thors proposed a multi-level graph cut to produce the region proposal
that possibly contains the object. The region proposals are then verified
using patch verification to validate if the proposals do contain the target
object or not. The features are extracted using Histogram of Oriented
Gradients (HOG) and deep learning techniques. This kind of animal
detection achieved an average precision of 82.09%, which is slightly
lesser than the previous technique proposed by the authors [32].
On the same dataset, Yousif et al. (2017) proposed a background
modeling technique jointly with Deep Convolutional Neural Network
(DCNN) to detect animals and humans from the highly cluttered dataset.
The background subtraction modeling removes the background and
generates the region proposals that contain the foreground object. The
regions are fed to the DCNN for classification. This technique achieved
an average accuracy of 83.78%. Recently, Verma and Gupta (2018)
proposed an animal detection model using the spatio-temporal object
region proposal proposed by Zhang et al. (2016) and deep neural net­
works. The authors used the region proposal technique to identify the
object region and feed-forwarded them to neural networks for training.
Specifically, the authors trained Visual Geometry Group (VGG) and
Residual Network (ResNet) model and achieved an average accuracy of
91.2% with ResNet [33].
2.4. LH1 animal-face dataset
Si and Zhu (2011) released an animal face dataset with 19 classes
containing the head of the animals. The dataset has a total of 2200
images, and the classes had huge intra-class and inter-class variance. The
authors also proposed a generative learning model that required only
very few training data. Each animal class had a template that learns the
features, including the scale, and orientation. The templates are char­
acterized by texture, local sketch, flat regions, colour, and a few more
features. The baseline model achieved an average accuracy of 75.6%.
Peng et al. (2016) proposed an animal classification system using
deep boosting and dictionary learning. The dictionaries are sequentially
combined with the previous layers and finally obtain an image repre­
sentation that is used for training the deep neural network. On the LH1
animal face dataset, the model achieved an average accuracy of 81.5%.
Taheri and Toygar (2018) also proposed an animal face classification
system using score fusion. The authors proposed a hybrid CNN and local
hand-crafted features and weighed them using score-level fusion. For the
local features, the authors used Kernel Fisher Discriminator (KFD) and
biologically inspired features. The intuition is that features from hybrid
modules produce better performance than CNN alone. The model was
tested on the LH1 animal face dataset and achieved an average classi­
fication accuracy of 95.31%.
2.4.1. Public camera trap datasets
Apart from the three benchmark datasets, there are few other public
datasets like Alexander von Humboldt Institute dataset, the Wild data­
set, and UCBS Sedgwick Reserve dataset. However, these datasets have
not been benchmarked yet. The Alexander von Humboldt Research
Institute released a camera trap dataset of 10 animal classes that were
captured with 176 camera traps in 10 different regions of Colombia.
Giraldo-Zuluaga et al. (2017) released this dataset and proposed a
baseline model for animal segmentation and classification from the
camera trap images. The segmentation uses the Multi-layer robust PCA
4
Measurement: Sensors 25 (2023) 100611
technique, followed by CNN for feature extraction, Least Absolute
Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) for feature selection, and
SVM classifier for classifying the animals. The model was trained with
several CNN architectures like GoogleNet, MixtureNet, and ResNet with
50, 101, and 152 layers. Among all these networks, ResNet-152 ach­
ieved the best accuracy of 90.32%.
Parham et al. (2018) proposed a novel technique for identifying the
annotation of interest for identifying the animals. The authors proposed
a pipeline model that includes annotation localization, annotation
classification, background segmentation, and AoI classification. The
final AoI can be used as a focused-input for any appearance-based model
to increase the reliability of the model. The authors have also released a
dataset named WILD with 6 different animal species accounting for 5784
images. On this dataset, the authors achieved an average accuracy of
94.28% with the proposed baseline model.
Elias et al. (2017) proposed an automated animal monitoring system
using the Edge cloud and IoT system. The authors have proposed a
practical Where’s The Bear (WTB) system in UCBS Sedgwick Reserve to
analyze how good the proposed model is in detecting the animals from
camera trap images. The model is developed with the open-source
TensorFlow and OpenCV applications to perform classifications. Un­
like other animal monitoring systems, the proposed model discards the
empty frame on-site and transfers only the true positive images. The
model has tested on over 1.2 million images and has achieved an
average accuracy of 90%.
2.4.2. Animal detection systems with own dataset
Certain animal detection systems were trained with camera trap
datasets and achieved considerable performance but still not available
for the benchmark. Maiti et al. (2015) studied the abundance of the
grizzly bear in Lake Louise in Banff national park of Canada. The images
captured over months produced around 37,000 images, out of which
only 27 images had a bear, and the rest were empty images. The authors
use the MSER (Maximally Stable Extremal Region) technique to segment
the bear from the image, and on this, a CNN is applied to classify if the
image indeed has a bear. The model, however, is prolonged and took
around a minute to classify, and the authors claimed to have achieved a
63% recall rate and a precision of 7%.
3. Proposed method
The strategy for training deep neural networks with noisy labels for
robust animal categorization in this part.
3.1. Noisy labels
Our objective is to train our network at various noise levels with and
without a limited number of unambiguous labels. Fig. 2(a) depicts the
primary outline of the suggested method. As shown in Fig. 2(a), we
employ the pretrained clean network to transform the input picture into
a feature vector. We propose that the other approach does not give ac­
cess to accurate data (Fig. 2(b)). From the input training picture, feature
maps are produced using the pretrained base model with varied amounts
of noise. Using k-means clustering (Everitt et al., 2011), we divide the
training dataset for each class into 12 groups in both architectures, and
from these groups, multiple convolutional neural networks are trained
using a random selection of 6 clusters.
The pretrained clean network, as shown in Fig. 2(a), can only be used
to predict the label at each step without training on the dataset gener­
ated by kmeans clustering and help the other two networks clean up
their labels. On clean samples, the pretrained clean network is only
trained once. On the other hand, various parts of the training dataset
may be used to train the CNN3 network in Fig. 2(b). To train the CNN3,
90% of the whole training dataset was randomly chosen. Using this
network and the other two autonomous networks, we will forecast new
labels. The anticipated labels will be used to update the network in the
T. Battu and D.S. Reddy Lakshmi
Fig. 2(a). Flow diagram of the proposed method. (a) With clean network. (b) Without clean network.
Fig. 2(b). The architecture of the convolutional neural network.
next step. This iterative method will be performed a great deal more
times.
We utilise each network independently in both structures to predict
the label for each picture in the training dataset. To update the original
picture label, we apply maximum voting among the anticipated labels.
In particular, if two or more networks create the same label, we apply it
to the sample. Otherwise, we just use the original label, which may be
distracting. Once the labels have been changed, we will return to
enhance those two networks. This label updating and network refining
procedure is done many times. Techniques 1 and 2 offer detailed algo­
rithms for implementing these two approaches. Fig. 3 depicts the
network topology for the Serengeti dataset’s base network, clean
network, and independent networks.For fair performance comparison,
we adopt the same model design as Yuan et al. (2018).
It is advised to utilise a statistical feature extraction method while
studying the face area of predator animals in outdoor settings. To extract
statistical information from a specific area of an image of an animal’s
face, area descriptors are employed. Since animal ears and eyes have
characteristics that are helpful for categorising animal species, we pro­
pose using them as a place to extract statistical information. Researchers
found a correlation between ecological niche and the pupil form of
5
Measurement: Sensors 25 (2023) 100611
terrestrial species, indicating that predators and prey animals had
distinct pupil forms [8]. In order to identify the species of animal, we
focused on extracting characteristics from an animal’s eyes and hearing
in this research. The steps are as follows: Initially, a dataset with images
of 10 animals was created (5 Predators, 5 Pets) The dimensions, loca­
tions, and lighting of the images vary widely. A few examples from the
dataset are shown in Fig. 3.
4. Experimental results
This section evaluates the effectiveness of our technique on the
Serengeti and Panama-Netherlands datasets using three separate met­
rics. labels for the three levels of noise: 30%, 50%, and 70% We contrast
the results of our experiments. recommended method using CNN as a
reference point.
4.1. Datasets
The first is the cameratrap images from Tanzania’s Serengeti Na­
tional Park in the Snapshot Serengeti collection (Swanson et al., 2015).
Assuming that each image only includes one species of animal, we
T. Battu and D.S. Reddy Lakshmi Measurement: Sensors 25 (2023) 100611

Fig. 3. Example of the dataset. The pet animals are shown in the top row, while the predator species chosen for this experiment are displayed in the bottom row.

discuss animal classification at the level of the individual picture. 12,904 4.1.1. Results from the clean sample Snapshot Serengeti and Panama-
colour images of 10 distinct animal species are included in the collec­ Netherlands datasets
tion. Our dataset was randomly split between 80% training samples and We assume that 5% of clean samples are available for training the
20% test samples. We use 85% of the samples for training, 10% for clean network in the following trials. To assess the success of the sug­
testing, and the remaining 5% as clean samples when utilising the clean gested technique, we employ accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score
network. the number of images used for each animal species in the criteria. The definition of precision is
training and testing sets 20 animal species from Panama and the
TP + TN
Netherlands are represented in photo sequences in the second dataset Accuracy = (1)
TP + TN + FP + FN
(Zhang et al., 2016). As shown in, we chose the training, testing, and
cleaning images at random. where TP stands for total number of true positive samples, TN for total
10,321 images from the Serengeti dataset were utilised for training, number of true negative samples, FP for total number of false positive
while 2583 images were used for testing. Fig. 4 shows the steps used to samples, and FN for total number of false negative samples. The
achieve the classification accuracy for the three different label noise following equation is used to determine precision.
levels. At stage 3, our method achieves an accuracy of 73.09% for 30%,
and accuracy declines beyond this point. For noise levels of 50% and TP
Precision = (2)
70%, respectively, it obtains accuracy of 59.66% and 46.50% at stage 2, TP + FP
while accuracy declines beyond stage 2. As we can see, accuracy may be Conversely, recall or sensitivity can be computed as
improved by doing label updating and network refining at many phases.
TP
However, if there are too many steps, such as more than three, the Recall = (3)
TP + FN
continuous label update loses accuracy and the performance suffers (see
Fig. 5). We utilise the F1 score or F measure, which is a harmonic mean of
accuracy and recall, to compute the combination of precision and recall.
It’s described as

Fig. 4. Accuracy of five steps on ten distinct Serengeti species datasets at various noise levels without clean samples.

6
T. Battu and D.S. Reddy Lakshmi Measurement: Sensors 25 (2023) 100611

Fig. 5. The compare the performance of our method to that of the ICL method, a cutting-edge method for removing label noise.

7
T. Battu and D.S. Reddy Lakshmi
2 × Precision × Recall 2TP
F1 Score = ×
Precesion + Recall 2TP + FP + FN
We compare the classification accuracy, recall, and F1 score metrics
of our proposed technique with those of the conventional CNN for each
animal species, as shown in Fig. 4. On the Snapshot Serengeti, we can see
that the suggested approach can fix noisy labels for noise levels of 30%,
50%, and 70%.
We use 10,321 images for training and 2583 for testing as we test our
approach on 10 Snapshot Serengeti dataset species without the clean
network. Step 3 of the technique results in an accuracy of 73.09% for
30%; however, stage 4 onwards sees a reduction in accuracy. It is shown
the classification accuracy attained for each of the three different label
noise levels. It achieves accuracy of 59.66% and 46.50% at stage 2 for
noise levels of 50% and 70%, respectively, but accuracy decreases
beyond stage 2. We can observe that a multi-stage label updating and
network refining process may boost accuracy. However, if there are too
many stages, let’s say more than three, the performance degrades and
the continuous label update loses accuracy over time.
The Panama-Netherlands dataset, which contains data on 20 native
animal species to North America, is also utilised to assess our technique.
samples from the Panama-Netherlands dataset representing 10 species.
Each sample is matched with a visual sequence. When the camera-trap
detects animal movement, it typically takes 3–20 photographs at a
frame rate of one per second, depending on how long the animal is in the
camera’s field of view. To build our networks, we use the pre-trained
AlexNet convolutional neural network.
For comparison’s purposes, we also provide the conventional CNN
method without any noise reduction. Our method outperforms the
standard CNN and ICL on the Snapshot Serengeti and Panama-
Netherlands datasets at all three degrees of noise (Yuan et al., 2018).
We demonstrate how different sample fractions of the whole data
impact performance. Using 90% of the whole data, the network is
trained on the Snapshot Serengeti with high accuracy. A 70% sample of
the Panama-Netherlands datasets is used to train the network, producing
a network with high accuracy.
5. Conclusions and further discussions
There have been studies on the impact of loud labels on the classi­
fication of animals. From these noisy examples, we created a cutting-
edge technique for creating an exact animal species categorization
network. With and without clean samples, we looked into the network
training process. The studies’ findings show how our method for label­
ling noise with and without clean samples is accurate. This study has
demonstrated the importance of network diversity in producing a more
accurate joint estimate of sample label performance. To construct groups
with a variety of traits, we combined deep neural network features with
k-means clustering. The clusters are then used to generate groupings.
After then, each group is utilised to train its own network. This has
allowed us to guarantee that each network receives training using a
unique set of photos. In order to determine the real label of the noisy
data, we can apply maximum voting.
For extensive wildlife monitoring by citizen scientists, the suggested
method for categorising animal species from cameratrap photos with
noise labels may be useful (Fegraus et al., 2019). Most camera-trap
photos are gathered, analysed, and shared by amateur volunteers or
citizen scientists. There will definitely be a large number of inaccurate
labels in their annotations. We will be able to extract useful animal
species classifiers from these datasets using the suggested methodology.
Funding details
There are no funding details available.
8
Measurement: Sensors 25 (2023) 100611
Informed Consent
There is no Informed Consent.
Author’s contribution
The author ‘s declare no contribution.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Thirupathi Battu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Validation, implementation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing, Visualization. D. Sreenivasa Reddy Lakshmi: Conceptualiza­
tion, Overall, Supervision, Project administration, Formal analysis.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
References
[1] E. Beigman, B.B. Klebanov, Learning with annotation noise, in: In Proceedings of
the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th
International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP vol.
1, Association for Computational Linguistics, 2009, pp. 280–287 August.
[2] A.J.A. Fegraus, E.T. Birch, N. Flores, R. Kays, T.G.O. Brien, J. Palmer, S. Schuttler,
J.Y. Zhao, W. Jetz, M. Kinnaird, S. Kulkarni, A. Lyet, D. Thau, Wildlife insights : a
platform to maximize the potential of camera trap and other passive sensor wildlife
data for the planet, Environ Conserv page 2014 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0376892919000298.
[3] R. Fergus, L. Fei-Fei, P. Perona, A. Zisserman, Learning object categories from
internet image searches, Proc. IEEE 98 (8) (2010) 1453–1466.
[4] B. Han, Q. Yao, X. Yu, G. Niu, M. Xu, W. Hu, I. Tsang, M. Sugiyama, Coteaching:
robust training of deep neural networks with extremely noisy labels, Adv. Neural
Inf. Process. Syst. (2018) 8527–8537.
[5] L. Jiang, Z. Zhou, T. Leung, L.J. Li, L. Fei-Fei, Mentornet: Learning Data-Driven
Curriculum for Very Deep Neural Networks on Corrupted Labels, 2017 arXiv
preprint arXiv:1712.05055.
[6] I. Jindal, M. Nokleby, X. Chen, Learning deep networks from noisy labels with
dropout regularization, in: Data Mining (ICDM). in: 2016 IEEE 1th, 2016,
December.
[7] A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, G.E. Hinton, ImageNet classification with deep
convolutional neural networks, Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (2012) 1097–1105.
[8] N. Manwani, P.S. Sastry, Noise tolerance under risk minimization, IEEE Trans.
Cybernetics 43 (3) (2013) 1146–1151.
[9] N. Natarajan, I.S. Dhillon, P.K. Ravikumar, A. Tewari, Learning with noisy labels,
Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (2013) 1196–1204.
[10] D.F. Nettleton, A. Orriols-Puig, A. Fornells, A study of the effect of different types of
noise on the precision of supervised learning techniques, Artif. Intell. Rev. 33 (4)
(2010) 275–306.
[11] L. Niu, W. Li, D. Xu, Visual recognition by learning from web data: a weakly
supervised domain generalization approach, in: Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis.
Pattern Recognit., 2015, pp. 2774–2783.
[12] M. Ren, W. Zeng, B. Yang, R. Urtasun, Learning to Reweight Examples for Robust
Deep Learning, 2018 arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.09050.
[13] D. Rolnick, A. Veit, S. Belongie, N. Shavit, Deep Learning Is Robust to Massive
Label Noise, 2017 arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.10694.
[14] A. Swanson, M. Kosmala, C. Lintott, R. Simpson, A. Smith, C. Packer, Snapshot
Serengeti, high-frequency annotated camera trap images of 40 mammalian species
in an African savanna, Sci. Data 2 (2015).
[15] C. Szegedy, W. Zaremba, I. Sutskever, J. Bruna, D. Erhan, I. Goodfellow, R. Fergus,
Intriguing Properties of Neural Networks, 2013 arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6199.
[16] G. Van Horn, S. Branson, R. Farrell, S. Haber, J. Barry, P. Ipeirotis, P. Perona,
S. Belongie, Building a Bird Recognition App and Large Scale Dataset with Citizen,
2015.
[17] A. Veit, N. Alldrin, G. Chechik, I. Krasin, A. Gupta, S.J. Belongie, in: Learning from
Noisy Large-Scale Datasets with Minimal Supervision, CVPR, 2017, July,
pp. 6575–6583.
[18] T. Xiao, T. Xia, Y. Yang, C. Huang, X. Wang, Learning from massive noisy labeled
data for image classification, Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognition
(2015) 2691–2699.
T. Battu and D.S. Reddy Lakshmi
[19] B. Yuan, J. Chen, W. Zhang, H.S. Tai, S. McMains, Iterative cross learning on noisy
labels, in: In 2018 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision
(WACV), IEEE, 2018, March, pp. 757–765.
[20] N. Zhang, M. Paluri, M.A. Ranzato, T. Darrell, L. Bourdev, Panda: pose aligned
networks for deep attribute modeling, in: Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern
Recognit., 2014, pp. 1637–1644.
[21] Z. Zhang, Z. He, G. Cao, W. Cao, Animal detection from highly cluttered natural
scenes using spatiotemporal object region proposals and patch verification, IEEE
Trans. Multimed. 18 (10) (2016) 2079–2092.
[22] B. Zhou, A. Lapedriza, J. Xiao, A. Torralba, A. Oliva, Learning deep features for
scene recognition using places database, Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (2014)
487–495.
[23] X. Zhu, A.B. Goldberg, Introduction to semi-supervised learning, Synth. Lect. Artif.
Intell. Mach. Learn. 3 (1) (2009) 1–130.
[24] Ramdas Vankdothu, DrMohd Abdul Hameed, Husnah Fatima, A brain tumor
identification and classification using deep learning based on CNN-LSTM method,
Comput. Electr. Eng. 101 (2022), 107960.
[25] Ramdas Vankdothu, Mohd Abdul Hameed, Adaptive features selection and EDNN
based brain image recognition on the internet of medical things, Comput. Electr.
Eng. 103 (2022), 108338.
[26] Vankdothu Ramdas, Mohd Abdul Hameed, Ayesha Ameen, Raheem, Unnisa, Brain
image identification and classification on Internet of Medical Things in healthcare
system using support value based deep neural network”, Comput. Electr. Eng. 102
(2022), 108196.
Measurement: Sensors 25 (2023) 100611
[27] Ramdas Vankdothu, Mohd Abdul Hameed, Raju Bhukya, Gaurav Garg, Entropy
and sigmoid based K-means clustering and AGWO for effective big data handling,
Multimed. Tool (2022) 1–18.
[28] Ramdas Vankdothu, Mohd Abdul Hameed, Brain tumor MRI images identification
and classification based on the recurrent convolutional neural network,
Measurement: Sensors Journal 24 (2022), 100412.
[29] Ramdas Vankdothu, Mohd Abdul Hameed, Brain tumor segmentation of MR
images using SVM and fuzzy classifier in machine learning, Measurement: Sensors
Journal 24 (2022), 100440.
[30] Ramdas Vankdothu, Mohd Abdul Hameed, COVID-19 detection and classification
for machine learning methods using human genomic data, Measurement: Sensors
Journal 24 (2022), 100537.
[31] Ayodeji Olalekan Salau, Nikhil Marriwala, Muzhgan Athaee, Data security in
wireless sensor networks: attacks and countermeasures, Mobile Radio
Communications and 5G Networks (2020) 173–186.
[32] Nikhil Marriwala, O.P. Sahu, Anil Vohra, 8-QAM software defined radio based
approach for channel encoding and decoding using forward error correction,
wireless personal communications Journal 72 (4) (2013).
[33] Nikhil Marriwala, Om Prakash Sahu, Anil Vohra, LabVIEW based design
implementation of M-PSK transceiver using multiple forward error correction
coding technique for software defined radio applications, J. Electr. Electron. Eng. 2
(4) (2014).