PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

BenthIQ: a Transformer-Based Benthic Classification Model for Coral Restoration

Rupa Kurinchi-Vendhan, Drew Gray

physical sciencescoral reefsbenthosremote sensingsemantic segmentationconvolutional neural networksvision transformers
5.30100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.30)
6.50100
Mimo
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.43)
4.30100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.41)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — In this work, we introduced a encoder-decoder architecture with a ViT backbone for the semantic segmentation of aerial reef imagery.

Abstract

Coral reefs are vital for marine biodiversity, coastal protection, and supporting human livelihoods globally. However, they are increasingly threatened by mass bleaching events, pollution, and unsustainable practices with the advent of climate change. Monitoring the health of these ecosystems is crucial for effective restoration and management. Current methods for creating benthic composition maps often compromise between spatial coverage and resolution. In this paper, we introduce BenthIQ, a multi-label semantic segmentation network designed for high-precision classification of underwater substrates, including live coral, algae, rock, and sand. Although commonly deployed CNNs are limited in learning long-range semantic information, transformer-based models have recently achieved state-of-the-art performance in vision tasks such as object detection and image classification. We integrate the hierarchical Swin Transformer as the backbone of a U-shaped encoder-decoder architecture for local-global semantic feature learning. Using a real-world case study in French Polynesia, we demonstrate that our approach outperforms traditional CNN and attention-based models on pixel-wise classification of shallow reef imagery.

Author context

Most prolific author: 1 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 30 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 30% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 30)