Papers › On Thin Ice: Towards Explainable Conservation Monitoring via Attribution and Perturbations
On Thin Ice: Towards Explainable Conservation Monitoring via Attribution and Perturbations
Jiayi Zhou, Günel Aghakishiyeva, Saagar Arya, Julian Dale, James David Poling, Holly R. Houliston, Jamie N. Womble, Gregory D. Larsen, David W. Johnston, Brinnae Bent
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Computer vision can accelerate ecological research and conservation monitoring, yet adoption in ecology lags in part because of a lack of trust in black-box neural-network-based models. We seek to address this challenge by applying post-hoc explanations to provide evidence for predictions and document limitations that are important to field deployment. Using aerial imagery from Glacier Bay National Park, we train a Faster R-CNN to detect pinnipeds (harbor seals) and generate explanations via gradient-based class activation mapping (HiResCAM, LayerCAM), local interpretable model-agnostic explanations (LIME), and perturbation-based explanations. We assess explanations along three axes relevant to field use: (i) localization fidelity: whether high-attribution regions coincide with the animal rather than background context; (ii) faithfulness: whether deletion/insertion tests produce changes in detector confidence; and (iii) diagnostic utility: whether explanations reveal systematic failure modes. Explanations concentrate on seal torsos and contours rather than surrounding ice/rock, and removal of the seals reduces detection confidence, providing model-evidence for true positives. The analysis also uncovers recurrent error sources, including confusion between seals and black ice and rocks. We translate these findings into actionable next steps for model development, including more targeted data curation and augmentation. By pairing object detection with post-hoc explainability, we can move beyond "black-box" predictions toward auditable, decision-supporting tools for conservation monitoring.
In Syntology View this paper on Syntology: its repositories, every harvested function with whether it ran, its licence and the call to fetch it.
Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2510.21689")
Code
Syntology Ran 2 of 2 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 2 ran · our draft was wrong.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 2 samples from 1 repository, 2 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
2 samples harvested; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 2 of the 2 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from duke-trust-lab/on-thin-ice. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
5f1576acc1936c69 · report
2416651bdbfa116a · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2510.21689, was issued in October 2025, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections