Skip to content
Computational Pathology Reading Roadmap

Writing study: The SA-FARI Dataset: Segment Anything in Footage of Animals for Recognition and Identification

← CVPR 2026 oral writing corpus

Dante Wasmuht, Otto Brookes, Maximilian Schall, Pablo Palencia, Christopher Beirne, Tilo Burghardt, Majid Mirmehdi, Hjalmar Kühl, Mimi Arandjelovic, Sam Pottie, Peter Bermant, Brandon Asheim, Yi Jin Toh, Adam Elzinga, Jason Allan Holmberg, Andrew Whitworth, Eleanor Flatt, Laura Gustafson, Chaitanya Ryali, Yuan-Ting Hu, Baishan Guo, Andrew Westbury, Kate Saenko, Dídac Surís · Official CVPR 2026 oral record

Figure, table and section ledger

Editorial contribution type: Datasets, benchmarks & measurement (primary).

Layout extraction, not a required paper template. Counts are distinct caption labels; a multi-panel figure counts once. Section spans are estimated from heading positions, including floats and whitespace. Method and limitations.

Canonical PDF
11 physical pages
Before references / appendix
≈ 8.34 page-equivalents
Main figures / tables
5 / 5
Attached appendix figures / tables
0 / 0
Attached appendix span
Separate file recorded below; not in this PDF total
Before references / appendix: ≈ 75.82%References / intervening material: ≈ 24.18%Estimated layout envelopes, not text/artwork area. Unresolved appendix boundaries remain within the undivided post-body material.

Extraction notes: No attached appendix boundary detected. Zero means no recognized caption, not independently verified absence.

Section-by-section lengths and source pages

The title/abstract/front matter precede the first numbered heading. A span ends at the next detected top-level heading, not at the last sentence; end-page whitespace is included. References and statements are listed separately. These are not measurements of text-only or artwork area.

Top-level headingStarts on PDF pageEstimated spanShare of entire PDF
1. Introduction1≈ 2.23 pp.20.27%
2. Related Work3≈ 1.07 pp.9.73%
3. The SA-FARI Dataset4≈ 2.53 pp.23%
4. Benchmarks7≈ 1.48 pp.13.45%
5. Conclusion8≈ 0.66 pp.6%
References9≈ 2.66 pp.24.18%
All detected figure and table locations

Main text

Attached appendix

    No recognized caption labels.

    Separate source files—excluded from canonical-PDF totals

    A separate author version may repeat main text and references. Whole-file lengths and counts are not extra appendix material and are never added to the canonical PDF totals. Read the study's source scope for which sections received substantive reading versus layout inspection.

    Additional source 1

    Separate PDF (or ZIP containing it): whole-file layout of 3 physical pages; 0 detected figures and 0 tables. These may include overlapping main-text material.

    Located appendix only: starts on physical p.1; ≈ 2.85 page-equivalents, 0 figure labels and 0 table labels. This interval is distinct from the whole file.

    Detected headingPDF pageEstimated span
    Supplementary Material1≈ 0.04 pp.
    A. Additional Dataset Statistics1≈ 0 pp.
    B. Metrics1≈ 1.22 pp.
    C. Baseline Selection2≈ 0.43 pp.
    D. Annotation Details2≈ 0.25 pp.
    E. SAM 3 Fine-Tuning Details3≈ 0.92 pp.

      Argument and organization

      1. Motivation and related work §§1–2

        Connect tracking masks to conservation needs and compare coverage/annotation gaps in prior datasets.

      2. Dataset and benchmarks §§3–4

        Explain annotation, taxonomy, split design and long-tail factors before species-specific and generic tracking evaluation.

      Problem, claim and contribution

      The paper explains why multi-animal tracking is a prerequisite for downstream ecology, then identifies insufficient species, locations and dense temporal annotations as specific dataset gaps.

      PDF pp. 1–3 · Main paper · Additional source 2

      Argument and section order

      The terminology distinguishes tracklets from masklets, and the benchmark separates species-name-conditioned evaluation from species-agnostic detection/tracking.

      §2, PDF p. 3; §4, PDF p. 7 · Main paper · Additional source 2

      Figures, captions and visual explanation

      The species distribution spans two panels with log-scaled counts and separate train/test colors; test-only species are visible, making the long-tail/open-world claim inspectable.

      Figure 5, PDF p. 6 · Main paper · Additional source 2

      Tables, comparisons and evidence

      Split statistics state non-overlapping camera locations; performance is then broken down by small masks, occlusion/motion, multiple animals and night conditions rather than only one overall HOTA score.

      Table 2, PDF p. 7; Tables 3–5, PDF p. 8 · Main paper · Additional source 2

      Appendix and reproducibility

      The supplement defines metrics, motivates baseline choice, reports annotation rejection/agreement checks and describes the distinct finetuning versus mixed-training recipes.

      Supplement §§A–E, PDF pp. 1–3 · Main paper · Additional source 2

      Clarity and writing conventions

      The prior-dataset comparison calls existing resources complementary despite scale advantages, and the captions define how masklet summaries are aggregated.

      Table 1, PDF p. 4; Figure 4, PDF p. 5 · Main paper · Additional source 2

      What to reuse—and what not to infer

      Transferable lesson: For a long-tailed video dataset, visualize train/test category counts, state site separation and audit annotation exhaustivity before claiming broad generalization.

      Boundary: Location-disjoint splits and test-only species improve the test but do not establish equal coverage of all wildlife; a few taxa dominate the data and training variants use different mixtures.

      Apply this lesson using the argument and evidence worksheet.

      Inspection record and sources

      Checked
      2026-09-26
      Reading status
      Writing-focused manuscript scan + selected visuals inspected
      Main text
      Manuscript-wide writing scan of PDF pp. 1–11: framing, argument sequence, section organization, figure/table captions, evaluation interpretation and limitations; reference sections identified. This is a writing-focused scan, not an exhaustive technical proof or reproduction audit. Main PDF pages 3 and 6 were rendered and visually inspected.
      Appendix / supplement
      Writing-focused scan of the separate supplementary PDF, pp. 1–3, including its organization, captions, protocol/evidence detail and limitation material where present; proofs and code listings were inspected for exposition, not independently verified or executed. Supplement §§A–E, PDF pp. 1–3. Linked video/audio demonstrations and non-PDF archive contents were not assessed.
      Visually inspected PDF pages
      3, 6

      This is a writing-focused scan of the manuscript and the stated supplementary scope: framing, organization, visual explanation, evidence presentation and wording. It is not a line-by-line proof audit, reproduction of results or exhaustive scientific review.