The FLAIR method improves aerial imagery analysis of sharks by leveraging zero-shot learning and requiring no labeled data.
The recent widespread adoption of drones for studying marine animals provides opportunities for deriving biological information from aerial imagery. The large scale of imagery data acquired from drones is well suited for machine learning (ML) analysis. Development of ML models for analysing marine animal aerial imagery has followed the classical paradigm of training, testing and deploying a new model for each dataset, requiring significant time, human effort and ML expertise. We introduce Frame‐Level Alignment and Tracking (FLAIR), which leverages the video understanding of Segment Anything Model 2 (SAM 2) and the vision‐language capabilities of Contrastive Language‐Image Pre‐training (CLIP). FLAIR takes a drone video as input and outputs segmentation masks of the species of interest across the video. Notably, FLAIR leverages a zero‐shot approach, eliminating the need for labelled data, training a new model or fine‐tuning an existing model to generalize to other species. We trained state‐of‐the‐art object detection and instance segmentation models on a new dataset of Pacific nurse sharks. We show that FLAIR massively outperforms these methods and performs competitively against two human‐in‐the‐loop approaches for prompting SAM 2, achieving a Dice score of 0.8. FLAIR readily generalizes to other shark species without additional human effort and can be combined with custom heuristics to automatically extract relevant information including length and tailbeat frequency. FLAIR has significant potential to accelerate aerial imagery analyses, requiring markedly less human effort and expertise than traditional machine learning workflows, while achieving superior accuracy and generalization performance. By reducing the effort required for aerial imagery analysis, FLAIR allows scientists to spend more time interpreting results and deriving insights about marine ecosystems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lalgudi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: