Bird species identification accuracy and latency vary by image resolution and model

What Input Resolution Is Required for Bird Species Identification, and What Is Its Latency Cost on an Edge Device? A Study of 14 Input Resolutions and Six Architectures with On-Device Measurements

Computer Vision and Pattern RecognitionMachine Learning

Summary

Identifying bird species from images is important for preventing bird crashes at wind farms. The authors studied how the size of the input image affects the accuracy and speed of different AI models running on a small computer device. They found that bigger images do not always improve accuracy as much as changing the model can. Also, smaller images can save processing time depending on how the images are handled. The study highlights that measuring accuracy on the actual device is important because some settings that look good during testing can perform worse in real life.

What this means in practice

  • For wind farm operators: Optimize bird identification models and input sizes on edge devices to reduce bird strike risks while meeting latency constraints.
  • For edge device developers: Design AI inference pipelines with appropriate input resolution and model precision to balance accuracy and processing speed on resource-limited hardware.

Authors

Takeshi Nishikawa

Abstract

Bird-strike mitigation at wind farms requires identifying distant birds that span only tens of pixels, so the classifier's input resolution N is a design variable, not a fixed specification. We study it with a factorial design over 14 side lengths N (16 to 224), six architectures, two training and evaluation regimes and 30 random seeds -- 2,520 checkpoints and 5,040 evaluations -- plus latency measured on an NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano. Four results. (1) The selected N depends on the target: 0.90 is met on validation by ResNet50 at N=112 in an estimated 1.85 ms (0.8980 on test) and 0.95 by DINOv2-L at N=144 in 12.70 ms; changing the model buys more accuracy than raising N (+5.93 versus +2.33 points at N=112). (2) The benefit of lowering N depends on the assumed preprocessing path: N=224 -> 80 saves 13.5% when each individual is decoded from its own file but 46.2% when the detector decodes the 4K frame once; the Pareto set grows from 20 to 23 configurations. (3) Accuracy must be measured on the deployed engine: half precision costs ViT-S/16 alone 4 to 7 points at N>=96 while the CNNs stay within 0.1 points, and with selection held at validation the choice differs at 26 of 176 targets. A broken FP16 engine can run faster than a correct one, undetectable from latency; admitting 14 ViT-S/16 FP32 configurations moves the recommendation over the 0.931-0.938 band and under the 10 ms budget. (4) ViT-L-scale models fit this device, but activations exceed the FP16 range; splitting the graph at transformer-block boundaries confines FP32 to the affected segments, making the deployed DINOv2-L chain 1.85x faster than the single-engine build. We also quantify how the regime-difference sign stabilises with seed count; a sensitivity split removing some forms of group sharing preserves all 14 non-trivial signs at the selection boundary.