Had difficulty coming up with a good title for this thread but its a concern I have that I feel will best be explained with an example. Lets say you have a genus that is found in both Europe and North America (Genus X). Only 1 species of Genus X is found in Europe, while there are several similar l…

A real example is with this fly genus here, Gymnopternus. There are 910 observations on inat, about 80 of which are G. flavus. Before G. flavus made it into the model, the model correctly offered Gymnpternus to all Gymnopternus observations. But now, only offers it as a suggestion to those observati…

that’s similar to what happened lately for other fly species included in the CV model: Pollenia vagabunda (the only species IDable on photos) is now suggested for all cluster flies, and the Sarcophaga carnaria-complex for all flesh flies. In both cases, only genus should be suggested and due to ma…

[image] mabuva2021: Before G. flavus made it into the model, the model correctly offered Gymnpternus to all Gymnopternus observations. But now, only offers it as a suggestion to those observations that look like this one species in the Northeast, while ignoring the rest and mis-Iding them as Dol…

Maybe rather ask @alex regarding these models. There has been a discussion about using disagreements as a measure to reduce these issues. However, please note that there are not necessarily species suggested, as for the flesh flies, it is the species complex (it was species level before, and there …

Yes, thats the gist of it. I was having trouble putting it into words. Once one species makes it into the model, the model seems to hone into only that subset of observations when suggesting an ID. This problem usually gets better after several species make it into the model, but thats not always e…

I have lamented this exact thing for years. I’ve often thought the CV would work better if it was trained on the “remainder” of a genus (without species ID or in a species not eligible for CV) alongside any species that makes it into the CV, particularly in cases where the percentage of non-CV eligi…

I have been thinking for a while that it might be useful to be able to flag species/genera that are a persistent source of erroneous CVs. If a curator agrees, then the taxon in question would get passed on to iNat staff with a recommendation to remove that taxon from the CV from the model in the ne…

I’ve ran into this issue many times when IDing Ichneumonidae. Most of the issues fall into two categories. A. Like mentioned above a species is Identifiable from photos in one area but not another. B. CV only knows of one species in a difficult to ID group and suggests only that species for anythi…

I’ll chime in that we see this problem with robber flies, too. It feels counterintuitive because after I clean up a problem genus then one or two easy species might shoot up and get included in the CV model, so it stops suggesting genus-only level IDs… which makes more work for us identifiers than b…

Concern about CV Model for global genera

General

bouteloua September 15, 2023, 5:05pm 9

Staff decided not to move forward with that suggestion: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/add-a-flag-for-frequent-computer-vision-identification-errors/1905

Topic		Replies	Views
Genus not included in CV model General	7	212	September 5, 2024
New Vision Model Training Started News and Updates	34	3977	February 14, 2022
Allow some non-leaf taxa to be added to the CV model Feature Requests	23	851	March 4, 2026
Once something is incorrectly in the CV model, there's no removing it without diligent effort General	34	1058	October 15, 2025
Are genus-level RG observations used for CV training? General question	38	969	April 16, 2025

Concern about CV Model for global genera

Related topics