Wildlife Species Classification on the Edge: A Deep Learning

Perspective

Subodh Ingaleshwar

, Farid Thasharofi

, Mateo Avila Pava

, Harshit Vaishya

Yazan Tabak

, Juergen Ernst

, Ruben Portas

, Wanja Rast

, Joerg Melzheimer

Ortwin Aschenborn

, Theresa Goetz

1,3 k

and Stephan Goeb

Fraunhofer- Institute for Integrated Circuits IIS, Erlangen, Germany

Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany

Department of Industrial Engineering and Health, University of Applied Sciences Amberg-Weiden, Germany

juergen.ernst}@iis.fraunhofer.de, {portas, rast, melzheimer, aschenborn}@izw-berlin.de,

{theresa.goetz, stephan.goeb}@iis.fraunhofer.de

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence (AI), Animal Species, Applied Conservation, Deep Neural Networks,

Embedded Systems, Energy Efficient, Image Classification.

Abstract: Accurate and timely recognition of wild animal species is very important for various management processes

in nature conservation. In this article, we propose an energy-efficient way of classifying animal species in

real-time. Specifically, we present an image classification system on a low power Edge-AI device, which

embeds a deep neural network (DNN) in a microcontroller that accurately recognizes different animal species.

We evaluate the performance of the proposed system using a real-world dataset collected via a small handheld

camera from remote conservation regions of Africa. We implement different DNN models and deploy them

on the embedded device to perform real-time classification of animal species. The experimental results show

that the proposed animal species classification system is able to obtain a remarkable accuracy of 84.30% with

an energy efficiency of 0.885 𝑚J on an edge device. This work provides a new perspective toward low power,

energy-efficient, fast and accurate edge-AI technology to help in inhibiting wildlife-human conflicts.

1 INTRODUCTION

The illegal trade in wildlife products is a global

problem. This is not only endangering animal species

that are already at risk of extinction but also affecting

the livelihoods and security of human lives residing in

the region (Wildlife Crime Report, 2022). It is a

recorded fact that in every 20 minutes, an animal is

poached or killed in human-wildlife conflict (Poaching

and Biodiversity Report, 2022). According to World

Wildlife Fund (WWF) for Nature, poaching of

Cheetahs has increased to 7,700% in last few years

(WWF Report, 2021). Zoologists are of the opinion,

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4425-1317

https://orcid.org/0009-0006-1822-7889

https://orcid.org/0009-0008-3061-8588

https://orcid.org/0009-0007-8150-8576

https://orcid.org/0009-0000-4981-9090

https://orcid.org/0009-0007-6600-2745

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0686-0701

the more we study the wild, better we can develop and

apply effective conservation measures. Artificial

Intelligence (AI) on edge devices is expanding to more

niche domains, for instance ecological understanding,

because of the wide range of advancement in the areas

of embedded systems design (Dominguez et.al., 2021)

(J. Bartels et.al., 2022). Areas of embedded systems

design include high-speed parallel processing

elements, ultra-lower boards, multi-level PCB design

and IDE’s with low-level debug features. These

advancements, from AI model development to

deployment, lead to a new set of tools and processes in

DNN powered embedded AI applications.

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3465-3117

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3490-1515

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7494-3795

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8751-3404

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1206-7478

600

Ingaleshwar, S., Thasharoﬁ, F., Pava, M., Vaishya, H., Tabak, Y., Ernst, J., Portas, R., Rast, W., Melzheimer, J., Aschenborn, O., Goetz, T. and Goeb, S.

Wildlife Species Classiﬁcation on the Edge: A Deep Learning Perspective.

DOI: 10.5220/0012376700003636

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Agents and Artiﬁcial Intelligence (ICAART 2024) - Volume 3, pages 600-608

ISBN: 978-989-758-680-4; ISSN: 2184-433X

1.1 Challenges in AI

As the magnitude of the features in Neural Network’s

(NN) crosses one billion trainable parameters,

increment in storage & arithmetic operations prevents

them from being adopted in the battery powered

embedded environments. Embedded AI and Edge AI

are AI technologies related to the deployment of AI

models on Local/Edge devices, rather than relying on

centralized cloud-based solutions. However, they

have different focuses and use cases. Edge devices are

the devices with limited power capacity like

smartphones, smart sensors, wearables etc. Edge

devices are preferred over the cloud for certain

applications due to data privacy, less latency, limited

battery power and limited communication bandwidth

(Edge AI Technology Report, 2023). The main

difference between embedded AI and edge AI is the

scale and complexity of AI tasks that can be handled

and the types of devices to be deployed. Embedded

AI refers to specific functions within dedicated

hardware, whereas Edge AI is more versatile and can

be deployed on a broader range of devices for real-

time, local processing. The choice between them

depends on the specific use case and availability of

hardware resources.

1.2 Related Work

Several studies discuss the different deep learning

based methods for classifying different animal

species. Authors (S. Han et.al., 2021) proposed four

different methods of animal species classification

using Face HQ dataset. Two convolutional neural

network (CNN) based VGG16 and ResNet methods

achieved an accuracy of 84% and 87% respectively.

The remaining two unsupervised clustering with

variational auto-encoder and auto-encoder with SVM

records almost 94% of accuracy over the test data.

The proposed methods recorded good accuracy but

contain complex computations that make it hard to

synthesize. Authors (Sahil Faizal et.al., 2022)

provided a method for classifying animals mentioned

in IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. They

proposed a technique based on fine-tuning of the

InceptionResNet that has been trained using cloud

computing resources of Google Colab on animal

species from Kaggle dataset. The recorded test

accuracy is 95% with less number of epochs. The

network performs complex computations, which are

difficult to synthesize. Authors (Binta Islam, S. et.al.,

2023) proposed an AI-based automated classification

solution for camera-trap, herpetofaunal animals using

the pre-trained DNN models like ResNet and

VGG16. Authors (Zualkernan, I et.al.,2022)

introduced an IoT system for animal species

classification using pre-trained models like

InceptionV3, MobileNetV2, ResNet18,

EfficientNetB1, DenseNet121, and Xception neural

network models. They used a custom made camera-

trap image dataset of 66 thousands images and

deployed on different platforms. The latency time for

Jetson Nano is 0.276 sec with current consumption of

1665.21 mA and for Raspberry-pi is 838.99mA with

latency of 2.83sec. (Zhongqi Miao et.al.,2019)

suggested a DNN model using VGG16 and ResNet50

along with gradient weighted class-activation-

mapping (Grad-CAM) procedure to extract the most

salient features in the final convolution layer. The

proposed method reported an accuracy of 86%.

Authors (Ibrahim Mai et.al., 2020) recorded

accuracy of 96% on their CNN model, which is

trained using BCMOTI and Snapshot Wisconsin

datasets. The recorded an inference time is 9sec,

which is high, compared to the other controllers

(Arthur Moss et.al.,2022) (Mitchell Clay et.al.,2022)

like MAX 78000 with inference time varies from 3 to

26ms based on model and input size. Authors (A.

Reuther et.al., 2020 & 2022) provide an extensive list

of accelerators categorized as very low power,

autonomous, data center chips and cards, lastly data

center systems. Authors also provide the sorted list

based on different features like computation

precision, form factor, peak performance and power

consumption details. Similarly, author Weison Lin

et.al, not only lists pre-configured edge AI

accelerators but also coarse-grained reconfigurable

array (CGRA) technology accelerators, which

support dynamic reconfiguration (Lin, W. et al.,

2021). Author also mentions actual performance,

implementation, and productized examples of edge

AI accelerators with key performance metrics that can

be of significant information for Embedded AI

designers.

This paper demonstrates an entire framework of

the animal classification system starting from training

of CNN based classification model to its deployment

onto a low-power Edge device MAX 78000FTHR.

The system is specifically built for deep learning

based applications with an on-board CNN

accelerator. The main contributions of this work are

summarized as below,

a) Developing an end-to-end ultra-low powered

image classification system for recognizing

different animal species.

b) Perform a thorough experimental analysis of two

different DNN models that efficiently classify

different animal species on the edge device.

Wildlife Species Classiﬁcation on the Edge: A Deep Learning Perspective

601

The remaining part of the paper is organized as

follows: Section II describes the materials like

datasets, components and methods used to build

model and selection of the AI hardware. Section III

presents and discusses the results obtained from the

proposed system. The paper ends with a conclusion

in Section IV.

2 MATERIAL AND METHODS

2.1 Dataset

The image data used in this study are collected using

a range of available cameras including cell phone

cameras over the vast and remote regions of

Namibian savannah ecosystems. The dataset contains

6300 images of three different classes: Elephant,

Cheetah and landscape. Duplicate or similar images

were removed manually and only 5550 were

considered for experimentation. The experiment

dataset contains 1650 images of Elephants, 1650

images of Cheetahs and 1800 images of landscape, all

of which were labeled and examined by the

researchers of Leibniz-IZW. Figure 1 shows the

examples of images from each class used in our study.

2.2 Image Pre-Processing

The collected images had a resolution of 5472 

3648 pixels. All the images were down-sampled to a

resolution of 64  64 , 96  96 and 180  180

pixels. In order to increase the model’s

generalizability, data augmentation techniques were

applied. Random transformations such as horizontal

flip, rotation (90 degree), Gaussian blur and Color

augmentation were performed on each image. The

dataset is split into 90% training images and 10%

testing images. The test data is treated as unseen data

and only reserved for testing the model. We perform

5-fold cross-validation on the training dataset to fine-

tune each of the selected models. After achieving

satisfactory accuracy through the cross-validation

processes, the model with best performance was

selected as the final model and evaluated with unseen

test data.

2.3 Deep Neural Network (DNN)

Models

In this study, two DNN models were trained and

tested on the collected dataset. The selected DNN

Figure 1: Example of the dataset. The wild animals are

shown in the top row (Elephant and Cheetah, respectively),

while landscape class for this experiment are displayed in

the bottom row.

models are inspired from popular VGG architecture

(Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman, 2015) with

varying number of convolutional layers such as, six

layer VGG (VGG-6) and eight layer VGG (VGG-8).

VGG-6 consists of three convolutional layers and

three fully connected layers, whereas VGG-8 is made

up of five convolutional layers and three fully

connected layers. The last fully connected layer is a

softmax layer with three neurons for predicting the

corresponding classes. Both the models were trained

using Adam optimizer and cross-entropy loss

function. Furthermore, both the models were trained

using the PyTorch framework and then retrained with

MAXIM API’s.

2.4 Hardware/Deployment Platform

To evaluate the performance of the selected DNN

models in real-time, we deployed them onto the ultra-

low power edge device. We have analyzed seven

different recently launched ultra-low powered

embedded processors mainly used for neural network

inference and training purposes. These accelerators

are Maxim 78000 (Maxim User Guide, 2020), GAP8,

GAP9 (GAP Processors, 2020), Kendryte

(L.Gwennan, 2019), Perceive (J.McGregor, 2020),

AI storm, Gyrfalcon (SolidRun, 2020). All these AI

accelerators are on-chip devices intended for low

powered-low latency applications.

ICAART 2024 - 16th International Conference on Agents and Artiﬁcial Intelligence

602

Figure 2: Pareto diagram for AI hardware selection.

Figure 2 shows the Pareto diagram used for the

selection of an efficient hardware model. The key

factors considered in this graph are peak performance

in terms of Giga operations per sec (GOPs/sec), Peak

power (w) and SRAM size of each AI processor.

Circle with varying radius is used to denote the

SRAM size. Larger the radius, higher the size of

SRAM and vice versa. After studying the Pareto

diagram shown in Figure 2, we choose the AI

accelerator with the best performance such as

MAX78000 CNN inference engine in this study.

Table 1: Main features of MAX78000.

Main features MAX78000

ARM Cortex M4

with FPU

Operating @100MHz

NN Accelerator

with 64 parallel

rocessors

Operating @ 50MHz

RISC V as Smart

DMA

Operating @ 60MHz

Operating modes

of MAXIM 78000

Seven operating modes

(Active, Sleep. Low

power mode, Ultra-low

Power, Standby,

Backup, Power down)

Flash memor

512KB

SRAM 128KB

NN Accelerator

RAM

Data RAM 512KB

Mask RAM 432KB

Bias RAM 2KB

Tornado RAM 384KB

The MAX78000FTHR is a new Artificial

Intelligence (AI) board with MAX78000

microcontroller that enables DNN models to operate

in real-time at ultra-low power (Maxim User Guide,

2020). This controller has an ARM Cortex-M4F core,

a RISC-V core, and a CNN accelerator, which

enables low-powered applications to run AI

inferences at high speed while consuming very low

energy. The main features of the MAX78000 are

summarized in Table 1. The selected VGG-6 and

VGG-8 models are deployed onto the

MAX78000FTHR using PyTorch checkpoints. Since

the PyTorch models are trained with floating-point

weights and biases, weights are quantized using

integer-arithmetic-only quantization during re-

training with MAXIM API’s. The model’s

performance is expected to be degraded due to weight

quantization. The quantized model is synthesized

using MAX78000 synthesizer via Maxim tools

(Maxim User Guide, 2020). The C code generated

from the MAX78000 synthesizer is then executed on

the MAX78000 to predict the class of unseen images

in real-time.

2.5 Maxim Micros SDK: Firmware

Development Using MaximSDK

The Maxim Micros SDK (Maxim User Guide, 2020)

is a multi-os installer used to install the Eclipse IDE,

examples, libraries and necessary tools required to

develop the firmware for Maxim Integrated’s

Microcontroller ICs. This installer is fully integrated

with Eclipse™ and MaximSDK. The Eclipse IDE is

used for C/C++ project development, with peripheral

configuration, code generation, code compilation and

low level debug features for MAXIM micro-

controllers. It also bundles setups for all the required

programs. The programs bundled in the setup consist

of GNU Tools for ARM Embedded Processors,

Eclipse CDT IDE for C/C++ Developers (Maxim

Integrated version), Maxim Integrated Bitmap

Converter, Maxim Integrated Secure Tools,

Minimalist GNU for Windows (MinGW), Open On-

Chip Debugger(OpenOCD), and Olimex ARM-USB-

TINY-H Drivers.

3 RESULT ANALYSIS

In this section, we present the experimental results

obtained from the classification system using the

PyTorch framework, over two different DNN models

and different image resolutions. These experiments

were performed in two different testing scenarios: (1)

training and testing the DNN models using PyTorch

framework on a dedicated computer, and (2)

deploying the trained DNN models on MAX78000

using Maxim development tool and testing unseen

images in real-time. We further provide a thorough

analysis of a real-time image classification approach

that significantly influences the testing accuracy,

Wildlife Species Classiﬁcation on the Edge: A Deep Learning Perspective

603

inference time, memory utilization and energy

consumption when deployed onto the edge device.

3.1 Model Evaluation Results

The results obtained from both DNN models for the

collected dataset after training and evaluating them on

unseen test data using PyTorch are presented in Table

2. A model’s performance can be assessed by how the

trained classifier predicts the unseen image. First, to

assess the effect of image resolution on validation

accuracy, input images are down-sampled to three

different sizes. These sizes include dimensions of

64  64, 96  96, and 180  180. This analysis

helps in understanding how down-sampling affects

the DNN model’s validation accuracy. Figure 3

demonstrates the validation accuracy of the VGG-8

model over 100 training epochs. It is observed that the

model has been converged around 40 epochs. From

Figure 3, it can be observed that down-sampling input

images to a resolution of 64  64 leads to

performance degradation, compared to using images

with a resolution of 180  180.

Figure 3: Validation accuracy for VGG-8 model to

investigate the effect of down-sampling on performance

during 100 training epochs.

We then evaluated the model’s performance with

a test dataset to measure the model’s generalizability.

The test results were calculated with commonly used

statistical metrics known as accuracy and F1 score.

The results obtained over the different image

resolutions for each of the DNN model configurations

are reported into Table 2. As expected, higher image

resolution (180  180) achieved higher accuracy of

84.45% and 88.12% for VGG-6 and VGG-8 models,

respectively. A higher resolution implies the

availability of more information in terms of more

pixels to classify the image. On the other hand, when

images were down-sampled to the dimensions of

64  64 , the classification performance of both

models degraded significantly. However, in order to

achieve the best classification performance, the

higher image resolution to be used which directly

affects the energy consumption of the edge device on

which models are deployed, as well as the total

inference time to perform prediction for each image.

Table 2: Classification results of VGG-6 and VGG-8 with

unseen test dataset.

Model Image Size

Accuracy

[%]

F1 score

[%]

VGG-6

64x64 82.88 80.05

96x96 83.12 82.4

180 x 180 84.45 82.67

VGG-8

64x64 81.55 79.67

96x96 86.67 85.93

180 x 180 88.12 86.53

3.2 Embedded AI Deployment Results

The already-trained DNN models obtained with

PyTorch were then quantized and synthesized using

the Maxim tool in order to integrate them onto the

hardware platform, MAX78000. Motivated by

(Dominguez et.al., 2021), we used X-accuracy as a

performance metric to demonstrate the performance

of DNN models on MAX78000. It represents the

difference in terms of accuracy with a model trained

in PyTorch framework before quantizing and

synthesizing it and after deploying it on MAX78000.

Figure 4: X-cross accuracy [%] and Accuracy [%]. of VGG-

6 and VGG-8 with unseen test dataset when deployed on

MAX78000. X-cross accuracy of 100% indicates that the

model deployed on MAX78000 observed the same

accuracy as the original model.

Therefore, 100% X-cross accuracy means the

model deployed on MAX78000 obtains same accuracy

100

64x64 96x96 180 x

180

64x64 96x96 180 x

180

VGG-6 VGG-8

Accuracy [%]

X-cross accuracy Accuracy

ICAART 2024 - 16th International Conference on Agents and Artiﬁcial Intelligence

604

as the model before deployment. The classification

performance of each DNN model configuration

deployed on MAX78000 is reported in Figure 4. Figure

4 shows that both VGG-6 and VGG-8 models with

different image resolutions achieve almost the same

accuracy as their software counterparts. The bars in red

color indicate the actual accuracies obtained by each

model when deployed on MAX78000.

3.2.1 Inference Time

Figure 5 presents the effect of image resolution and

model size (in terms of number of convolutional

layers) on inference time when predicting a single

image on MAX78000. Figure 5 clearly shows that the

smaller size images provide faster inference when

deployed onto the edge device. As expected, the

deeper the model, the more time it needs for

prediction of an unseen image. For instance, the

VGG-8 model clearly requires more time to perform

prediction than that of VGG-6. Since the CNN

accelerator of MAX78000 has 64 processors and a

maximum 64 number of operations can be performed

in parallel, the inference time is shown to be increased

in a stepwise manner with different image

resolutions. This is a quite interesting fact about

MAX78000.

Figure 5: Inference time by each studied DNN model to

perform a prediction for a single image on MAX78000.

3.2.2 Mops/S per Watt for Each of the DNN

Models on MAX78000

Figure 6 indicates the performance of each studied

model in terms of Mops/s/Watt (10



operations per

second per watt) when deployed on MAX78000. This

measure is the most commonly used to depict the

performance of an embedded platform. As expected,

a deeper model needs more operations to execute per

demanded watt. Moreover, bigger images require a

large number of operations to execute per demanded

watt. On the other hand, a smaller image size and less

deep model seem to be more efficient. An image with

higher resolution entails the device must analyze

more pixels in order to perform a prediction.

Figure 6: Mops/s per watt for each of the studied DNN

models.

3.2.3 Memory Usage

Figure 7 compares the memory usage for both VGG-

6 and VGG-8 in terms of flash, weight and bias

memories. The reported results show that, in

comparison to the higher resolution, smaller size

images reduce the total required memory utilization

(or usage) during inference. Higher resolution means

an increase in the number of pixels, which in turn

increases the memory consumption and prediction

latency. Increasing the memory usage and the

prediction latency directly increases the energy

consumption that can be confirmed in the following

Subsection 3.2.4. Bias memory utilized by VGG-6 is

2 bytes, whereas VGG-8 utilizes 514 bytes of bias

memory during inference. The bias memory usage is

not displayed in Figure 7 because of the scale of Y-

axis.

Figure 7: Memory usage for each of the studied DNN

models on MAX78000.

64x64 96x96 180x180

Inference time [ms]

Size of the image

VGG-6 VGG-8

64x64 96x96 180x180

Mops/s per watt

Size of the image

VGG-6 VGG-8

100

200

300

400

500

64x64 96x96 180 x

180

64x64 96x96 180 x

180

VGG-6 VGG-8

Memory usage [KB]

Flash memory usage Weight memory usage

Bias memory usage

Wildlife Species Classiﬁcation on the Edge: A Deep Learning Perspective

605

3.2.4 Energy Consumption

Energy consumption is a crucial factor when

deploying the DNN model onto an AI edge device. It

indicates the capability of running DNN models using

mJ’s means of energy. We calculated the energy

consumption of each model by measuring the current

drawn while running each model. A simple setup used

for the measurement of energy consumption is shown

in Figure 8. Another crucial metric for measuring the

energy consumption is inference execution time.

Executing an inference on an AI device involves

different operations such as setting it up, loading

weights and data, executing the model, and offloading

any result to the microcontroller unit. Figure 9 shows

the current profile of VGG-8 model for an image size

of 96  96. Total energy consumption is calculated

by multiplying applied voltage, current drawn during

inference, and inference execution time. Table 3

displays the execution time for each of the operations

and current drawn during each operation.

Figure 8: Experimental setup for inference energy

measurement of AI device.

Figure 9: Current profile of the VGG-8 model for an image

size of 96×96 (Note: The noise in the signal is due to

onboard voltage regulator).

Figure 10 represents the energy consumed during an

inference for each model on MAX78000. As

expected VGG-6 with an image size of 64  64

consumed the least amount of energy. Overall, VGG-

6 at all sizes consumes less energy than VGG-8 since

it is a smaller model and needs fewer operations to

execute on MAX78000. Higher image resolution

based models consumed more energy, from 2.84 mJ

to 4.275 mJ. This clearly indicates the influence of

image resolution on energy consumption when the

model is deployed on MAX78000.

Figure 10: Energy consumption for each of the studied

DNN models on MAX78000.

Table 3: Current drawn during and execution time of each

operation to measure the energy consumption of VGG-8

model with an image size of 96×96.

Region Operation Current

[mA]

Execution

time [ms]

A ARM Cortex –

Active

(CNN idle)

8 --

B CNN enable 8 - 12 4

C CNN

confi

uration

12 14

D Inference 19 9

E Post Inference 12 5

F CNN disable 8 3

Inference energy 𝐸𝑉𝐼𝐼𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒

 5𝑉  19𝑚𝐴  9𝑚𝑠  0.855 𝑚J

4 CONCLUSION

In this paper, we performed the classification of

animal species using an ultra-low power edge AI

device named as MAX78000FTHR board. We have

provided thorough analysis pertaining to animal

species classification performance and real time

performance implications for wildlife monitoring.

We investigated the performance degradation

exhibited when down-sampling input images, and

demonstrated that significantly reducing the image

resolution has a marginal effect on validation as well

test accuracy, inference time, memory utilization and

most importantly energy consumption. The

64x64 96x96 180x180

Energy consumption[m J]

Size of the image

VGG-6 VGG-8

ICAART 2024 - 16th International Conference on Agents and Artiﬁcial Intelligence

606

experimental findings imply that the selected edge

device, MAX78000 specific model optimization,

need to be done to enhance the acceleration benefits.

The AI device used here represents a suitable

platform for future low power implementations in

edge computing devices.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the Fraunhofer

Institute for Integrated Circuits (IIS) for providing

infrastructure for carrying out this research work and

the European Research Consortium for Informatics

and Mathematics (ERCIM) for the award of Research

Fellowship.

REFERENCES

Wildlife Crime Report (2022): “Partnership against

Wildlife Crime (in Africa and Asia)” published by

Deutsche Gessellschat fur International

Zusammenarbeit on behalf of Federal Ministry for

Economic Cooperation and Development & Federal

Ministry for the Environment, Nature and Nuclear

Safety, https://www.bmz.de/resource/blob/100510/

partnership-against-wildlife-crime.pdf

Poaching and Biodiversity Report: Combating poaching

and the illegal trade in wildlife products

https://www.bmz.de/en/issues/biodiversity/poaching

World Wildlife Fund Report on Illegal Wildlife Trade:

https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/illegal-wildlife-

trade

Dominguez-Morales J.P., Duran-Lopez L., Gutierrez-

Galan D., Rios-Navarro A., Linares-Barranco A.,

Jimenez-Fernandez, A. (2021) “Wildlife Monitoring on

the Edge: A Performance Evaluation of Embedded

Neural Networks on Microcontrollers for Animal

Behavior Classification”. Sensors 2021, 21, 2975.

J. Bartels et al. (2022). "TinyCowNet: Memory- and

Power-Minimized RNNs Implementable on Tiny Edge

Devices for Lifelong Cow Behavior Distribution

Estimation," in IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 32706-32727,

2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3156278.

Edge AI Technology Report 2023, Published by Wevolver

and TinyML.

A. Reuther, P. Michaleas, M. Jones, V. Gadepally, S. Samsi

and J. Kepner, "AI and ML Accelerator Survey and

Trends," 2022 IEEE High Performance Extreme

Computing Conference (HPEC), Waltham, MA, USA,

2022, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.1109/HPEC55821.

2022.9926331.

Maxim Micro SDK (MaximSDK) Installation and

Maintenance User Guide

Cortex™-M4 Devices Generic User Guide.

A. Reuther, P. Michaleas, M. Jones, V. Gadepally, S. Samsi

and J. Kepner, "Survey of Machine Learning

Accelerators," 2020 IEEE High Performance Extreme

Computing Conference (HPEC), Waltham, MA, USA,

2020,

Cardarilli, G.C., Di Nunzio, L., Fazzolari, R. et al. A

pseudo-softmax function for hardware-based high

speed image classification. Sci Rep 11, 15307 (2021).

Vivienne Sze, Yu-Hsin Chen, Tien-Ju Yang, and Joel S.

Emer. (2022) Efficient Processing of Deep Neural

Networks, A Publication in the Morgan & Claypool

Publishers series SYNTHESIS LECTURES ON

COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE.

Colby Banbury, Chuteng Zhou, Igor Fedorov, Ramon

Matas Navarro, Urmish Thakker, Dibakar Gope, Vijay

Janapa Reddi, Matthew Mattina, Paul N.

Whatmough,(2021) MICRONETS: NEURAL

NETWORK ARCHITECTURES FOR DEPLOYING

TINYML APPLICATIONS ON COMMODITY

MICROCONTROLLERS, Proceedings of Machine

Learning and Systems,

L. Lai, N. Suda, and V. Chandra, “CMSIS-NN: Efficient

neural network kernels for arm cortex-M CPUs,” 2018.

[Online]. Available: arXiv:1801.06601,

Arthur Moss, Hyunjong Lee, Lei Xun, Chulhong Min,

Fahim Kawsar, Alessandro Montanari. 2022. Ultra-low

Power DNN Accelerators for IoT: Resource

Characterization of the MAX78000. In Workshop on

Challenges in Artificial Intelligence and Machine

Learning for Internet of Things (AIChallengeIoT).

Afshin Niktash, Developing Power-optimized Applications

on the MAX78000, Application Note

L. Gwennap, “Kendryte Embeds AI for Surveillance,” mar

2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.linleygroup.

com/newsletters/newsletter detail.php?num=5992

“GAP Application Processors,” 2020. [Online]. Available:

https://greenwaves-technologies.com/gap8 gap9/

“SolidRun, Gyrfalcon Develop Arm-based Edge Optimized

AI Inference Server,” 2020. [Online].

J. McGregor (2020), “Perceive Exits Stealth With Super-

Efficient Machine Learning Chip For Smarter

Devices,”

S. Han, Q. Gao, C. Wang and J. Zou(2021), "Animal face

classification based on deep learning," 2021 2nd

International Conference on Big Data & Artificial

Intelligence & Software Engineering (ICBASE),

Zhuhai, China, 2021,

Faizal, Sahil, Sundaresan, Sanjay (2022), “Wild Animal

Classifier Using CNN” International Journal of

Advanced Research in Science, Communication and

Technology – Publication date: 2022/09/18, doi:

10.48175/IJARSCT-7097.

Mitchell Clay, Christos Grecos, Mukul Shirvaikar, Blake

Richey (2022), "Benchmarking the MAX78000

artificial intelligence microcontroller for deep learning

applications," Proc. SPIE 12102, Real-Time Image

Processing and Deep Learning 2022.

Binta Islam, S.; Valles, D.; Hibbitts, T.J.; Ryberg,

W.A.;Walkup, D.K.; Forstner, M.R.J. (2023) Animal

Species Recognition with Deep Convolutional Neural

Wildlife Species Classiﬁcation on the Edge: A Deep Learning Perspective

607

Networks from Ecological Camera Trap Images.

Animals 2023, 13, 1526.

Ibrahim Mai, Gebali, Fayez, Li, Kin Fun, Sielecki, Leonard,

- Animal Species Recognition Using Deep Learning,

523-532, Publication date: 2020/03/28 doi:

10.1007/978-3-030-44041-1_47

Zualkernan, I. Dhou, S.; Judas, J. Sajun, A.R. Gomez, B.R.;

Hussain, L.A.(2022) An IoT System Using Deep

Learning to Classify CameraTrap Images on the Edge.

Computers.

Miao, Z., Gaynor, K.M., Wang, J. et al.(2019)Insights and

approaches using deep learning to classify wildlife. Sci

Rep 9, 8137 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-

019-44565-w

Lin, W.; Adetomi, A., Arslan, T. (2021) Low-Power Ultra-

Small Edge AI Accelerators for Image Recognition

with Convolution Neural Networks: Analysis and

Future Directions. Electronics 2021, 10, 2048.

Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman (2015) Very Deep

Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image

Recognition. International Conference on Learning

Representations.

ICAART 2024 - 16th International Conference on Agents and Artiﬁcial Intelligence

608