Open-set multi-view seahorse re-identification from underwater photograph sequences
Authors: Tristan Fauvel, Sylvie Louisy, Patrick Louisy, Thomas Fauvel
Organizations: Baysic Labs 37 rue Sommeiller, 74000 Annecy, France · Association Peau-Bleue 46 Rue des Escais, 34300 Agde, France · UMR BOREA (MNHN, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, IRD, UniCaen, UGA), Station marine de Dinard, CRESCO 38 rue du Port Blanc, 35800 Dinard, France · Parc Naturel Marin du Bassin d’Arcachon, 4 Rue Copernic, 33470 Le Teich, France · Office Français de la Biodiversité, 12 Cours Lumière, 94300 Vincennes, France
Automated animal re-identification from photograph sequences can facilitate minimally invasive Capture-Mark-Recapture studies at scale. Yet, photographs taken during an observation session can vary greatly in quality, not always providing the necessary information for accurate re-identification. In this paper, we present new methods for taxonomic classification, sex determination, and open-set re-identification from image sequences. We train and evaluate our models on a dataset of 35,914 photographs of 474 individual seahorses observed in the wild. We demonstrate that our approach, by combining information from multiple photographs, yields state-of-the-art performance.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Illustrative examples of photographs from the dataset. As this dataset was not specifically collected for the purpose of automated re-identification, images vary greatly in quality. Some images focus on the seahorse’s head, while others show the individual in its environment, with potential occlusion. Some images were taken for the purpose of measuring the animal’s length.
Species
Sex
N
FU med/max (d)
Obs/ind. (IQR)
Photos/obs (IQR)
H. guttulatus
Male
213
40/1015
3 (1–7)
13 (10–17)
H. guttulatus
Female
185
40/1094
2 (1–8)
13 (10–16)
H. guttulatus
Unknown
63
0/41
1 (1–1)
15 (12–20)
H. hippocampus
Male
8
2/87
2 (1–2)
16 (13–41)
H. hippocampus
Female
5
39/108
5 (5–7)
13 (10–32)
Table 1: Summary statistics by species and sex. FU: follow-up time in days. Obs/ind.: number of observations per individual. Photos/obs: number of photos per observation. IQR: interquartile range.
Species
n gaps
Min (d)
P25 (d)
Median (d)
P75 (d)
Max (d)
Mean ± SD
H. guttulatus
1983
1
7
13
31
609
33 ± 58
H. hippocampus
36
1
1
7
14
77
12 ± 17
Table 2: Inter-observation gap statistics by species. SD: standard deviation. P25: 25th percentile. P75: 75th percentile.
Method
Balanced acc. ↑
Macro F1 ↑
DINOv3 ViT-L/16 CLS (image)
0.88 [0.84, 0.91]
0.87 [0.81, 0.90]
DINOv3 ViT-L/16 CLS (observation)
0.94 [0.85, 1.00]
0.97 [0.91, 1.00]
BioCLIP 2.5 (image)
0.82 [0.75, 0.88]
0.74 [0.66, 0.78]
BioCLIP 2.5 (observation)
0.90 [0.80, 0.98]
0.94 [0.87, 0.98]
Table 3: Backbone comparison at the image and observation levels (observation = mean-logit fusion) for species classification. All metrics are identity-balanced, with 95% individual-level bootstrap intervals over the 13 H. hippocampus and 461 H. guttulatus individuals.
Method
Balanced acc. ↑
Macro F1 ↑
Brier ↓
ECE ↓
MCE ↓
Image (LR)
0.88 [0.84, 0.91]
0.87 [0.81, 0.90]
0.01 [0.01, 0.02]
0.01 [0.01, 0.01]
0.42 [0.29, 0.69]
Mean logit
0.94 [0.85, 1.00]
0.97 [0.91, 1.00]
1.30 [0.02, 3.63] ×10−3
2.20 [0.21, 6.17] ×10−3
0.58 [0.22, 0.59]
Logit sum
0.94 [0.85, 1.00]
0.97 [0.91, 1.00]
2.93 [0.00, 8.80] ×10−3
3.04 [0.00, 9.12] ×10−3
0.75 [0.00, 0.75]
Majority vote
0.99 [0.97, 1.00]
1.00 [0.99, 1.00]
3.12 [1.74, 5.10] ×10−3
0.01 [0.01, 0.02]
0.60 [0.44, 0.60]
Table 4: Comparison of image fusion methods with DINOv3 CLS, with the per-image logistic regression as a baseline, in species classification. All metrics are identity-balanced, with 95% individual-level bootstrap intervals. ECE: Expected Calibration Error. MCE: Maximum Calibration Error.
Method
Balanced acc. ↑
Macro F1 ↑
Brier ↓
ECE ↓
MCE ↓
Image (LR)
0.79 [0.77, 0.81]
0.79 [0.77, 0.80]
0.15 [0.14, 0.16]
0.06 [0.04, 0.07]
0.11 [0.08, 0.17]
Mean logit
0.89 [0.87, 0.92]
0.89 [0.87, 0.92]
0.08 [0.07, 0.10]
0.07 [0.05, 0.09]
0.13 [0.12, 0.30]
Logit sum
0.89 [0.87, 0.92]
0.89 [0.87, 0.92]
0.10 [0.08, 0.12]
0.10 [0.08, 0.12]
0.67 [0.50, 0.79]
Majority vote
0.87 [0.85, 0.90]
0.87 [0.84, 0.90]
0.10 [0.08, 0.11]
0.05 [0.04, 0.08]
0.16 [0.13, 0.27]
Table 5: Comparison of image fusion methods with DINOv3 CLS, with the per-image logistic regression as a baseline, in sex classification. All metrics are identity-balanced, with 95% individual-level bootstrap intervals. ECE: Expected Calibration Error. MCE: Maximum Calibration Error.
Method
BAKS ↑
BAUS ↑
BRA ↑
NA ↑
1. MiewID zero-shot
0.22 [0.16, 0.28] (-)
0.62 [0.57, 0.68] (-)
0.47 [0.42, 0.53] (-)
0.33 [0.26, 0.38] (-)
2. + MiewID fine-tuning
0.61 [0.54, 0.68] (+0.40)
0.65 [0.59, 0.71] (+0.02)
0.64 [0.59, 0.68] (+0.16)
0.61 [0.56, 0.66] (+0.29)
3. + relevance weighting
0.59 [0.52, 0.65] (-0.02)
0.66 [0.61, 0.71] (+0.01)
0.64 [0.59, 0.68] (-0.00)
0.60 [0.55, 0.65] (-0.01)
4. + ALIKED/LightGlue rerank
0.62 [0.53, 0.70] (+0.03)
0.86 [0.81, 0.91] (+0.20)
0.77 [0.73, 0.81] (+0.14)
0.72 [0.65, 0.77] (+0.12)
5. + logistic knownness
0.67 [0.60, 0.74] (+0.05)
0.78 [0.74, 0.82] (-0.08)
0.74 [0.69, 0.78] (-0.04)
0.71 [0.65, 0.75] (-0.01)
6. + MAP open-set decision
0.63 [0.56, 0.70] (-0.04)
0.87 [0.83, 0.90] (+0.09)
0.78 [0.73, 0.82] (+0.04)
0.72 [0.66, 0.76] (+0.01)
Table 6: Seahorse re-ID with a sparse gallery. Cells are means over 5 query/gallery role rotations within the test split, with 95% bootstrap intervals over test individuals in brackets and the change from the row above in parentheses.
Method
BAKS ↑
BAUS ↑
BRA ↑
NA ↑
1. MiewID zero-shot
0.34 [0.25, 0.42] (-)
0.58 [0.50, 0.65] (-)
0.49 [0.42, 0.56] (-)
0.40 [0.32, 0.47] (-)
2. + MiewID fine-tuning
0.68 [0.58, 0.77] (+0.34)
0.71 [0.64, 0.78] (+0.13)
0.70 [0.64, 0.76] (+0.20)
0.67 [0.60, 0.73] (+0.27)
3. + relevance weighting
0.70 [0.61, 0.79] (+0.02)
0.86 [0.81, 0.91] (+0.15)
0.80 [0.76, 0.84] (+0.11)
0.77 [0.71, 0.81] (+0.09)
4. + ALIKED/LightGlue rerank
0.78 [0.69, 0.86] (+0.08)
0.71 [0.65, 0.77] (-0.15)
0.74 [0.68, 0.79] (-0.07)
0.71 [0.64, 0.76] (-0.05)
5. + logistic knownness
0.84 [0.75, 0.91] (+0.06)
0.93 [0.89, 0.97] (+0.22)
0.90 [0.85, 0.93] (+0.16)
0.88 [0.82, 0.92] (+0.17)
6. + MAP open-set decision
0.82 [0.73, 0.89] (-0.02)
0.94 [0.90, 0.97] (+0.01)
0.90 [0.85, 0.93] (-0.00)
0.87 [0.82, 0.92] (-0.01)
Table 7: Seahorse re-ID with a rich gallery. Cells are means over 5 query/gallery role rotations within the test split, with 95% bootstrap intervals over test individuals in brackets and the change from the row above in parentheses.
Figure 2: Example images of high relevance (upper row) versus low-relevance (lower row) images.
Figure 3: True positive rate as a function of the false positive rate for determining whether the query corresponds to a new individual or an individual in the gallery, for the maximum-score thresholding method (orange curve) or for the logistic knownness detection model (blue curve). The left plot corresponds to the sparse gallery setting, whereas the right plot corresponds to the rich gallery case.
AnimalCLEF26 addresses discovery-oriented animal re-identification, where systems must both attach query images to known individuals and discover unseen individuals by clustering them correctly. We present a similarity-to-clustering pipeline for this setting across Eurasian lynx, fire salamander, loggerhead sea turtle, and Texas horned lizard images. The method first isolates the target specimen using segmentation and then applies lightweight species-specific preprocessing for lynx, sea turtle, and salamander images to enhance identity-relevant visual cues, while Texas horned lizard images are used after segmentation only. Pairwise similarities are then estimated with WildFusion by calibrating and combining a MiewID global descriptor with two local matching branches, ALIKED + LightGlue and DISK + LightGlue. The resulting query-query similarities are refined and converted into identity clusters using graph-based clustering, while query-database similarities are used to attach confident samples to known identities. We evaluate training-free and fine-tuned MiewID variants, including Dynamic ArcFace and SphereFace2-Focal adaptations, and combine them in the final ensemble. Our selected ensemble substantially improves on the WildFusion baseline, achieving the best public ARI of 0.72124 and a private ARI of 0.70393, while a simpler preprocessing-before-calibration variant achieves the best private ARI of 0.71087. These results indicate that calibrated global-local fusion with species-aware preprocessing choices is effective for open-set wildlife re-identification under challenging field conditions and visual variation. The implementation code is available on GitHub.
Made In Alexandria Artificial Intelligence Team, Alexandria, Egypt · Faculty of Computers and Data Science, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt · Faculty of Computer Science and Engineering, Alamein International University, New Alamein City, 51718, Egypt +3
Salmon re-identification in commercial net-pens is challenging due to large populations, which impose strict accuracy requirements and make large-scale labeled data acquisition infeasible. Trajectory IDs can be used as proxy labels, but this introduces trajectory-ID bias. To address these challenges, we propose a patch-based re-identification framework that fuses patch-level predictions into a salmon identity decision. A key component is the prediction of the salmon's lateral line, enabling extraction of texture-anchored patches and patch slices. To enable realistic evaluation, we introduce an experimental setup using multiple cameras placed 6 m apart, allowing the same fish to be recorded in different trajectories. This enables the construction of a cross-camera test set through manual match confirmation. Our ensemble approach outperforms the full-image baseline in same-trajectory validation (0.932 to 0.965 mAP) and cross-camera testing (0.609 to 0.860 mAP). The substantial improvements in the cross-camera setting demonstrate improved generalizability and robustness. Code and data: https://github.com/espenbh/salmon-reid-patch-ensemble.
Espen Uri Høgstedt, Christian Schellewald, Annette Stahl +1
Department of Computer Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway · SINTEF Ocean, Norway · Department of Engineering Cybernetics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Automated individual animal re-identification is essential for large-scale biodiversity monitoring; however, field imagery complicates separating identity cues from nuisance variation in pose, illumination, background, resolution, and species-specific morphology. The DS@GT ARC submission to AnimalCLEF 2026 introduces a multi-species image-clustering system for re-identifying Eurasian lynx, fire salamanders, loggerhead sea turtles, and Texas horned lizards. Instead of relying on a single descriptor or nearest-neighbor retrieval, this approach formulates re-identification as species-aware graph construction over candidate image pairs. The pipeline integrates tailored preprocessing, global candidate retrieval, LightGlue-based local verification with multiple keypoint families, LightGBM pair scoring, conservative edge admission, and Leiden community detection. This design directly addresses a primary failure mode of clustering-based re-identification: high-scoring false pairs that act as bridge edges and merge distinct individuals through transitive closure. Across species, ablation studies demonstrate that local feature support, foreground-aware preprocessing, and species-specific backbone selection enhance pair evidence, while graph operating points determine the trade-off between fragmentation and over-merging. The selected submission achieved a public ARI of 0.733 and a private ARI of 0.674, ranking fifth among 230 teams. These results indicate that robust wildlife re-identification requires not only strong visual representations but also calibrated integration of global similarity, local identity markings, neighborhood context, and graph-level constraints. The code can be found at https://github.com/dsgt-arc/animalclef-2026.
Evan Sinclair Smith, Anthony Miyaguchi, Snigdha Palamari +1
1Georgia Institute of Technology, North Ave NW, Atlanta, GA 30332