Combining imperfect automated annotations of underwater images with human annotations to obtain precise and unbiased population estimates

Abstract Optical methods for surveying populations are becoming increasingly popular. These methods often produce hundreds of thousands to millions of images, making it impractical to analyze all the images manually by human annotators. Computer vision software can rapidly annotate these images, but their error rates are often substantial, vary spatially and are autocorrelated. Hence, population estimates based on the raw computer automated counts can be seriously biased. We evaluated four estimators that combine automated annotations of all the images with manual annotations from a random sample to obtain (approximately) unbiased population estimates, namely: ratio, offset, and linear regression estimators as well as the mean of the manual annotations only. Each of these estimators was applied either globally or locally (i.e., either all data were used or only those near the point in question, to take into account spatial variability and autocorrelation in error rates). We also investigated a simple stratification scheme that splits the images into two strata, based on whether the automated annotator detected no targets or at least one target. The 16 methods resulting from a combination of four estimators, global or local estimation, and one stratum or two strata, were evaluated using simulations and field data. Our results indicated that the probability of a false negative is the key factor determining the best method, regardless of the probability of false positives. Stratification was the most effective method in improving the accuracy and precision of the estimates, provided the false negative rate was not too high. If the probability of false negatives is low, stratified estimation with the local ratio estimator or local regression (essentially geographically weighted regression) is best. If the probability of false negatives is high, no stratification with a simple global linear regression or simply the manual sample mean alone is recommended.

[1]  Herbert G. Tanner,et al.  Identifying sea scallops from benthic camera images , 2014 .

[2]  M. Love,et al.  A fishery-independent assessment of an overfished rockfish stock, cowcod (Sebastes levis), using direct observations from an occupied submersible , 2007 .

[3]  Mike Rees,et al.  5. Statistics for Spatial Data , 1993 .

[4]  David De Roure,et al.  Zooniverse: observing the world's largest citizen science platform , 2014, WWW.

[5]  L. Zhang,et al.  Comparison of bandwidth selection in application of geographically weighted regression : a case study , 2008 .

[6]  D. Hart Effects of sea stars and crabs on sea scallop Placopecten magellanicus recruitment in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (USA) , 2006 .

[7]  A. Stewart Fotheringham,et al.  Geographically Weighted Regression: A Method for Exploring Spatial Nonstationarity , 2010 .

[8]  Laura David,et al.  Automated benthic counting of living and non-living components in Ngedarrak Reef, Palau via subsurface underwater video , 2008, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[9]  Noel A Cressie,et al.  Statistics for Spatial Data, Revised Edition. , 1994 .

[10]  Phil F. Culverhouse,et al.  Automatic image analysis of plankton: future perspectives , 2006 .

[11]  Scott M. Gallager,et al.  Development of a high-speed, megapixel benthic imaging system for coastal fisheries research in Alaska , 2008 .

[12]  Robert B. Fisher,et al.  Detecting, Tracking and Counting Fish in Low Quality Unconstrained Underwater Videos , 2008, VISAPP.

[13]  Qiao Hu,et al.  Accurate automatic quantification of taxa-specific plankton abundance using dual classification with correction , 2006 .

[14]  Oscar Beijbom Random Sampling in an Age of Automation: Minimizing Expenditures through Balanced Collection and Annotation , 2014 .

[15]  A. Solow,et al.  Microaggregations of Oceanic Plankton Observed by Towed Video Microscopy , 1992, Science.

[16]  Charles V. Stewart,et al.  Automatic scallop detection in benthic environments , 2013, 2013 IEEE Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV).

[17]  David J. Kriegman,et al.  Automated annotation of coral reef survey images , 2012, 2012 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[18]  J. Howland,et al.  Evolution of a benthic imaging system from a towed camera to an automated habitat characterization system , 2008, OCEANS 2008.

[19]  A. Brand Scallop Ecology: Distributions and Behaviour , 2016 .

[20]  A. Solow,et al.  Estimating the taxonomic composition of a sample when individuals are classified with error , 2001 .

[21]  Antanas Verikas,et al.  An Integrated Approach to Analysis of Phytoplankton Images , 2015, IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering.

[22]  G. Stefansson,et al.  A Camera-Based Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Sampling Approach to Quantify Scallop Abundance , 2013 .