Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Public shrimp image collections are reused to train disease classifiers and non-invasive biomass estimators, yet they mix originals with published augmentations, byte-identical copies, and repeated views of the same animal, potentially inflating performance through data leakage. This study examines what these collections support once leakage is controlled: how protocol and acquisition conditions, rather than architecture alone, influence performance; whether disease recognition transfers to an independently collected dataset; and whether monocular imagery supports individual-weight estimation. One encoder is trained across three public datasets under masked supervision, using a grouping strategy that accounts for duplicates, augmentations, near-duplicates, and repeated views; a 22-check audit guides training and evaluation, with 240 runs reported. Regrouping by animal rather than file eliminates the 84.8–92.6% animal overlap in ShrimpDiseaseImageBD test folds, reducing it to 0.0%. A random image-level split yields 0.976 balanced accuracy, but 63% of its test records are published augmented copies; using originals alone yields 0.947, compared with 0.934 in the augmentation-enabled group-aware arm, which tests different original records. Transfer is asymmetric: the best-performing encoder reaches 0.615 balanced accuracy and 0.751 area under the curve on TigerShrimpBD; on ShrimpDiseaseImageBD, every encoder ranks below chance, with values of 0.271–0.390. TigerShrimpBD's 0.998 within-dataset score is affected by acquisition confounding, as every recovered capture session contains only one health class. Holding out a physical site increases biomass error from 3.18 g to 9.20 g, indicating limited cross-site generalization. The contribution is a reusable audit and evaluation protocol for interpreting performance on such collections.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Juarto et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: