Paper deep dive

WildMatch: Weakly Supervised Image Matcher Adaptation for Wildlife Re-Identification

Turhan Can Kargin, Piotr Kubaty, Ekaterina Rostovskaya, Izabela Wierzbowska, Bartosz Zieliński, Marcin Przewięźlikowski

Year: 2026Venue: arXiv preprintArea: cs.CVType: PreprintEmbeddings: 43

Intelligence

Status: succeeded | Model: Gemma-4-26B-A4B | Prompt: intel-v1 | Confidence: 92%

Last extracted: 10/7/2026, 9:15:40 AM

Summary

The paper introduces WildMatch, a weakly supervised method for adapting pretrained local image matchers to wildlife re-identification tasks using only identity labels. By mining informative image pairs and applying contrastive fine-tuning, WildMatch improves retrieval accuracy over off-the-shelf matchers and global embedding methods, demonstrating transferability to unseen individuals.

Entities (10)

WildMatch · method · 98%CzechLynx · dataset · 95%WildlifeReID-10k · dataset · 95%LoMa · model · 92%RDD · model · 92%DINOv3 · model · 90%MegaDescriptor-L · model · 90%SalamanderID2025 · dataset · 90%WildFusion · method · 90%LightGlue · model · 85%

Relation Signals (7)

WildMatch → evaluatedon → CzechLynx

confidence 95% · We evaluate WildMatch across eight wildlife re-identification datasets ... CzechLynx

WildMatch → evaluatedon → WildlifeReID-10k

confidence 95% · We evaluate WildMatch across eight wildlife re-identification datasets ... WildlifeReID-10k

WildMatch → improves → Retrieval Accuracy

confidence 95% · our approach improves accuracy over off-the-shelf matchers and a state-of-the-art local--global fusion method

WildMatch → uses → weak supervision

confidence 95% · We study weakly supervised adaptation of a pretrained keypoint matcher using only identity labels

RDD → isbasefor → WildMatch

confidence 90% · Off-the-shelf matchers rank the k candidates with the unadapted LoMa or RDD checkpoints

LoMa → isbasefor → WildMatch

confidence 90% · LoMa + WildMatch (ours) is compared with the default LoMa matcher

WildMatch → outperforms → WildFusion

confidence 90% · improves accuracy over ... a state-of-the-art local--global fusion method

Cypher Suggestions (0)

No Cypher suggestions yet.

Abstract

Abstract:Individual animal re-identification from camera-trap imagery is an instance retrieval problem central to non-invasive wildlife monitoring: a query image must retrieve the correct individual from a reference set of known animals. This requires computer vision models to recognize distinctive local patterns in fur, skin, or other visual markings. Current approaches either learn global embeddings as a classification problem, requiring many labeled images per individual while largely ignoring local evidence, or apply off-the-shelf, domain-agnostic image matchers. Although such matchers are pretrained on large and diverse image collections, adapting them to wildlife imagery is challenging because available datasets are small and lack correspondence-level annotations. We study weakly supervised adaptation of a pretrained keypoint matcher using only identity labels, without keypoint-level or geometric correspondence ground truth. We mine informative image pairs with the pretrained matcher, derive weak positive and negative supervision from identity agreement, and contrastively fine-tune the matching network to strengthen correspondences for same-identity pairs and suppress them for different identities. Across open-source wildlife re-identification datasets, our approach improves accuracy over off-the-shelf matchers and a state-of-the-art local--global fusion method. Under an open-world protocol with held-out individuals, it learns a transferable correspondence prior rather than memorizing training identities. To our knowledge, this is the first study of matcher-level, identity-supervised adaptation for animal re-identification. Our method enables data-efficient specialization of image matching models to wildlife domains using identity annotations already available in typical monitoring datasets.

PDF

Open source PDF →Open local PDF →

Trouble viewing inline? Open PDF directly →

Full Text

39,479 characters extracted from source content.

Expand or collapse full text

WildMatch: Weakly Supervised Image Matcher Adaptation for Wildlife Re-Identification Turhan Can Kargin 1,2⋆ , Piotr Kubaty 1,2 , Ekaterina Rostovskaya 2,5 , Izabela Wierzbowska 5 , Bartosz Zieliński 1,3 , and Marcin Przewiężlikowski 1,4 1 Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Jagiellonian University, Poland 2 Doctoral School of Exact and Natural Sciences, Jagiellonian University, Poland 3 Jagiellonian Center for Artificial Intelligence, Kraków, Poland 4 NASK National Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland 5 Institute of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland turhancan.kargin, piotr.kubaty, e.rostovskaya@doctoral.uj.edu.pl bartosz.zielinski, marcin.przewiezlikowski, i.wierzbowska@uj.edu.pl Abstract. Individual animal re-identification from camera-trap imagery is an instance retrieval problem central to non-invasive wildlife moni- toring: a query image must retrieve the correct individual from a ref- erence set of known animals. This requires computer vision models to recognize distinctive local patterns in fur, skin, or other visual mark- ings. Current approaches either learn global embeddings as a classifica- tion problem, requiring many labeled images per individual while largely ignoring local evidence, or apply off-the-shelf, domain-agnostic image matchers. Although such matchers are pretrained on large and diverse image collections, adapting them to wildlife imagery is challenging be- cause available datasets are small and lack correspondence-level annota- tions. We study weakly supervised adaptation of a pretrained keypoint matcher using only identity labels, without keypoint-level or geomet- ric correspondence ground truth. We mine informative image pairs with the pretrained matcher, derive weak positive and negative supervision from identity agreement, and contrastively fine-tune the matching net- work to strengthen correspondences for same-identity pairs and suppress them for different identities. Across open-source wildlife re-identification datasets, our approach improves accuracy over off-the-shelf matchers and a state-of-the-art local–global fusion method. Under an open-world pro- tocol with held-out individuals, it learns a transferable correspondence prior rather than memorizing training identities. To our knowledge, this is the first study of matcher-level, identity-supervised adaptation for ani- mal re-identification. Our method enables data-efficient specialization of image matching models to wildlife domains using identity annotations already available in typical monitoring datasets. Our project page can be found at wildmatch.gmum.net. Keywords: Animal re-identification· Instance retrieval· Local feature matching· Weak supervision· Camera traps. ⋆ T. C. Kargin and P. Kubaty contributed equally. arXiv:2610.07384v1 [cs.CV] 5 Oct 2026 2T. C. Kargin, P. Kubaty et al. QueryID: 300 Match Score: QueryID: 4 Match Score: Query Known Individuals Feature Matching Ranked List Who is this? ID: 1 ID: 2 ID: 3ID: 4 ID: 299 ID: 300 Shortlist for Experts 1 2 3 4 5 ID: 4 ID: 2 ID: 1 ID: 3 ID:299 Adapted to the Animal Domain with WildMatch Fig. 1. Wildlife re-identification as instance retrieval. A camera-trap query is compared with every known individual, and a local feature matcher ranks them by the summed confidence of point pairs that both images agree on, giving a short list for an expert. The database holds hundreds of individuals, of which six are shown. WildMatch performs weakly supervised adaptation of the matcher using only the identity labels of the database (Fig. 2), without keypoint or correspondence annotation. Images are synthetic CzechLynx renders [20], with illustrative matches and scores. 1 Introduction Ecological studies on wildlife monitoring and conservation require knowledge of demographic parameters, such as population size and structure. Whereas non- invasive monitoring methods, such as camera-trapping, allow for minimized an- thropogenic disturbance, estimating animal densities and turnover rates depends on capture-recapture modelling [12]. Individuals with explicit and unique coat patterns get distinguished, and their long-term well-being can be assessed [10]. Recognizing an individual means deciding which known animal a new photo- graph shows. Individual animal re-identification can therefore be formulated as an instance retrieval problem, where a query image must match the correct in- dividual from a reference set of known animals, as shown in Figure 1. When recognizing individuals, human experts rely on distinctive local markings, such as the arrangement of spots on a lynx’s coat [10]. They use extensive opportunis- tic camera-trapping or dual camera-trap setup to assign both body flanks to one individual and to compare coat patterns between multiple individuals [12,23]. This naturally motivates local feature matching as a computational approach to wildlife re-identification [27]. Global image embeddings discard much of this local evidence, since in visual models spatial information resides mainly in patch- level features and is largely obscured by global pooling [15]. A pairwise matcher has no identity-specific parameters and can in principle learn visual evidence that remains useful for previously unseen individuals [18]. Adapting such a matcher to a particular species has the potential to further improve identification accu- racy, but presents practical challenges. Wildlife re-identification datasets usually WildMatch: Weakly Supervised Image Matcher Adaptation3 provide image-level identity labels, whereas local matchers are conventionally trained using geometric or keypoint-level correspondence supervision [8]. An identity label establishes that two images depict the same individual, but does not reveal which local structures correspond between them. Moreover, due to bilateral asymmetry of flanks, two images of the same animal may contain little or no shared local evidence [23]. The central question we address is therefore: Can a general-purpose image matcher be specialized to a wildlife do- main using only the sparse identity annotations already available in re-identification datasets? We introduce WildMatch, a weakly supervised approach for adapting pre- trained local image matchers using identity labels alone. Our key idea is to use the pretrained matcher itself to identify image pairs for which informative lo- cal evidence is likely to exist. For each training image, we mine high-scoring images of the same individual as positive pairs and high-scoring images of differ- ent individuals as hard negatives. Identity agreement then provides weak pair- level supervision without requiring manual annotation of keypoints or geometric correspondences. We contrastively fine-tune the matching module, encourag- ing higher correspondence scores for same-identity pairs and lower scores for different-identity pairs. Intuitively, the pretrained matcher identifies where cor- respondence is plausible, while identity labels determine whether such correspon- dence should be encouraged or suppressed. We evaluate WildMatch across eight wildlife re-identification datasets span- ning multiple species and substantially different visual domains. Our experiments show that identity-supervised adaptation improves over both off-the-shelf local matchers and a state-of-the-art local–global fusion approach across most datasets and candidate budgets (see Figure 4). We further investigate where the limited identity supervision is most effectively used, finding that adapting the matching module improves both evaluated matcher architectures, whereas applying the same supervision to the descriptor branch does not provide the same benefit. Fi- nally, an open-world evaluation on individuals completely absent from matcher training shows that the gains persist beyond the identities used for adaptation, indicating that WildMatch learns a transferable correspondence prior rather than a closed-set identity classifier. Our contributions can be summarized as follows: – We introduce WildMatch, a weakly supervised method for adapting pre- trained local image matchers to wildlife re-identification using only identity labels, without keypoint-level or geometric correspondence annotations. – We demonstrate across eight wildlife re-identification datasets that adapt- ing the matching module improves identification accuracy over off-the-shelf matchers and competitive local–global baselines. – We show that the learned adaptation transfers to previously unseen indi- viduals and analyze where identity supervision should be applied within the matching pipeline. 4T. C. Kargin, P. Kubaty et al. Positive (ID: 4)Anchor (ID: 4) Negative (ID: 6)Anchor (ID: 4) Positive Pool Negative Pool Positive pair score Negative pair score maximize margin with triplet loss Matcher Before training selects the images used for training During training returns improved matches every iteration update matcher Fig. 2. Weakly supervised matcher adaptation with WildMatch. Before train- ing, the pretrained matcher selects top-scoring positives and hard negatives. A triplet loss then fine-tunes the matcher to score positive pairs above hard negatives. 2 Related Work Local feature matching establishes correspondences between salient image regions and underlies tasks such as retrieval, localization, and 3D reconstruc- tion [17]. Modern learned pipelines combine local feature extraction with neural matching modules that reason jointly over an image pair. LightGlue [16] intro- duced an efficient attention-based matcher, RDD [8] improves robustness of the underlying detector and descriptor, and LoMa [18] shows further gains from scal- ing data, model capacity, and training. These methods target general-purpose geometric matching, whereas we specialize matching to visual cues distinguishing individual animals. Photographic animal re-identification has long supported non-invasive mark–recapture studies, with early computer-assisted systems exploiting dis- tinctive visual markings [3]. Recent approaches predominantly learn global im- age representations, ranging from species-specific methods such as EDEN [7] to multi-species models [28,19]. Standardized resources such as WildlifeDatasets [28], WildlifeReID-10k [2], and CzechLynx [20] expose substantial variation in pose, illumination, image quality, and observations per individual. Local matching for animal re-identification complements global repre- sentations by explicitly comparing distinctive markings. HotSpotter [9] uses key- point matching for patterned species, while related work also addresses viewpoint- specific issues such as identifying the visible flank [23]. WildFusion [27] combines global similarity with pretrained local matchers, and recent AnimalCLEF sys- tems likewise employ LightGlue-based local verification [22]. In these approaches, WildMatch: Weakly Supervised Image Matcher Adaptation5 however, the matcher itself remains general-purpose rather than being adapted using animal identity labels. Feature matcher adaptation has recently shown that pretrained matching modules can be further specialized. Wang [25] fine-tunes attention-based sparse matchers across different local feature detectors while retaining pretrained fea- ture representations. This work targets compatibility across feature extractors, whereas WildMatch adapts the matching module to wildlife imagery using only image-level identity agreement, without geometric, pose, or keypoint-level cor- respondence supervision. 3 Method Current wildlife re-identification systems often employ image matchers to com- pare a query with candidate reference images retrieved from an annotated database. These matchers are typically neural-network-based and pretrained on general imagery [27,19]. WildMatch adapts such pretrained local feature matchers to the wildlife do- main using only image-level identity labels. Starting from a wildlife re-identification dataset labeled just with animal identities, we use the pretrained matcher to mine informative positive and hard-negative image pairs. We then fine-tune its matching module with a triplet ranking objective [13], as illustrated in Figure 2. Our method applies to pretrained matchers with a learnable matching module that can be adapted while retaining the original local feature representation. 3.1 Problem Setup and Inference LetQ denote the query set andG the gallery, with identity label y(x) associated with each image x. For a query q ∈Q, the goal is to rank gallery images depicting the same individual above those depicting other individuals. For each image x, the local feature extraction stage identifies n x keypoints with coordinates p x i ∈ R 2 and produces their local descriptor vectors z x i ∈ R d . The matching module M θ takes the coordinates and descriptors from two images (x,x ′ ) and predicts a confidence matrix P θ (x,x ′ )∈ [0, 1] n x ×n x ′ . Its entry P ij scores the candidate correspondence between keypoint i in x and keypoint j in x ′ . The matcher retains a keypoint pair as a correspondence if the two keypoints select each other as their highest-confidence match and P ij exceeds a confidence threshold. These retained pairs form the correspondence setA θ (x,x ′ ). We aggregate their confidences into an image-level matching score: s θ (x,x ′ ) = 1 min(n x ,n x ′ ) X (i,j)∈A θ (x,x ′ ) P ij .(1) The score combines the number and confidence of retained correspondences, normalized by the smaller keypoint count. At inference, we evaluate s θ (q,g) for each image g in a candidate set C k (q) ⊆ G. Candidates are re-ranked by decreasing matching score, and the highest-ranked results are returned. 6T. C. Kargin, P. Kubaty et al. In practice, we construct C k (q) as the k gallery images with the highest co- sine similarity between embeddings produced by a global image encoder, such as DINOv3 [21] or MegaDescriptor [28]. To reduce uninformative non-animal key- points and bias arising from stationary camera traps repeatedly capturing the same backgrounds, we additionally mask background pixels before feature ex- traction using dataset-provided animal segmentation masks; when these are un- available, the animal is segmented with SAM 3 [6] with dataset-specific prompts ordered from species names to broader animal-oriented descriptions. 3.2 Identity-Guided Pair Mining Training WildMatch requires positive pairs that share informative local evidence and challenging negative pairs. Identity labels alone do not identify such pairs: images of the same individual may show different viewpoints or opposite sides of the body and contain little or no shared visible markings. We therefore use the pretrained matcher to select high-scoring same-identity pairs as positives and high-scoring different-identity pairs as hard negatives. Let D train denote the labeled training set and θ 0 the pretrained matcher pa- rameters. We perform pair mining once, before fine-tuning, using the matching score s θ 0 from Eq. (1). Pair mining is performed directly on D train , indepen- dently of the global retrieval stage used at inference. To reduce redundancy and imbalance between frequent and rarely observed individuals, we subsample the training images and organize them into identity-specific collections. Each retained image is treated as an anchor a and matched against the remaining eligible training images. For each anchor, we form poolsP(a) andN(a) containing images of the same individual and other individuals, respectively. Using s θ 0 (a,·), we select up to five high-scoring images for each pool, distributing the selected examples across el- igible collections where multiple collections are available. This favors positives with plausible shared local evidence and negatives that the pretrained matcher already finds visually similar. Anchors without an eligible positive are discarded. Finally, we retain a limited number of anchors per collection, prioritizing those with the highest-scoring pair in either pool, max u∈P(a)∪N(a) s θ 0 (a,u), which lim- its the influence of disproportionately large collections. 3.3 WildMatch: Identity-Supervised Matcher Adaptation We train the matcher to assign higher scores to image pairs of the same identity than to pairs of different identities. For each anchor a, we sample p uniformly from P(a) and n from a mixture of hard negatives in N(a) and random images of other training individuals to increase sample diversity. Starting from θ 0 , we update only the matching module, while keeping the local feature extractor and global encoder frozen. The inference score in Eq. (1) relies on discrete correspondence selection and confidence thresholding, which may discard all correspondences for a training pair. We therefore optimize a relaxed score computed directly from P θ (x,x ′ ) WildMatch: Weakly Supervised Image Matcher Adaptation7 before these selection steps. For each keypoint, we take the confidence of its highest-scoring candidate in the other image and average these values symmet- rically across both images: ̃s θ (x,x ′ ) = 1 2   1 n x n x X i=1 max j P ij + 1 n x ′ n x ′ X j=1 max i P ij   .(2) This provides a training signal even when no correspondence survives the inference- time selection filters. We optimize the matcher using a triplet margin loss: L(θ) = E (a,p,n) h α− ̃s θ (a,p) + ̃s θ (a,n) + i ,(3) where [u] + = max(0,u) and α = 0.5. The objective encourages the adapted matcher to assign stronger correspondence evidence to same-identity pairs than to different-identity pairs. 4 Experimental Setup Datasets. We evaluate WildMatch on eight public datasets covering diverse species (Table 1). Six of them come from the WildlifeReID-10k collection [2,28], the seventh is CzechLynx [20], a recent camera-trap dataset of Eurasian lynx, and the eighth is SalamanderID2025, a collection of fire salamander photographs from the AnimalCLEF 2025 challenge [1]. We use the official splits, except for Salamander, whose query labels are not public, so we hold out the latest cap- ture date of each individual photographed on at least two dates as queries. The database split is used for fine-tuning, and query images are never seen during training. As is typical of field data, many images are noisy (Fig. 3), and we do not filter them. The datasets are also highly imbalanced (Table 1), which motivates the balanced metric below. Protocols. All methods use the candidate budgets k ∈10, 50, 100, 250, 500, 1000, with k=250 as the default. The WildlifeReID-10k datasets and the closed split of CzechLynx follow the closed-set protocol, in which every query individual is present in the database. To test transfer to individuals never seen during train- ing, we also define an unseen-identity protocol on CzechLynx. It uses the 44 individuals that appear in the test part of the open split but not in its training part. For each of them, the earliest encounter forms the gallery and all later en- counters form the queries, which yields 160 gallery and 2,081 query images and rules out encounter-level leakage. The matcher is fine-tuned on the training part of the open split (275 individuals), so none of the 44 contributes a training pair. Since the gallery holds only 160 images, the budgets are k ∈ 10, 50, 100, 160, and k=160 is exhaustive matching. 8T. C. Kargin, P. Kubaty et al. Table 1. Dataset statistics. Database (DB) images form the retrieval gallery and are the only images used for fine-tuning, and query (Q) images are evaluated against them. Med. and Max give the median and maximum number of database images per individual. The small plot shows the image counts of all individuals, sorted from most to least photographed, with the top 10% in dark blue, and Top 10% gives their share of all database images. Single is the share of individuals with one image. Images IndividualsImages per individual DatasetDBQ DB Q Med. Max Distribution Top 10% Single Nyala [11]1,514 428 237 236 5 2530% 24% Hyena [4]2,499 630 256 256 6 7235% 2% Leopard [5]5,373 1,433 430 380 3 329 70% 31% Sea star [24]1,759 428 95 95 14 3015% 0% Whale shark [14] 6,108 1,585 543 512 6 12342% 14% Turtle [26]9,721 3,082 2,265 2,251 2 9239% 3% Salamander [1] 1,138 246 584 221 1 1131% 64% CzechLynx [20] 27,836 11,924 319 319 26 2,46561% 0% Baselines and Metrics. We compare against four groups of baselines, all evalu- ated on the same background-masked images and splits. Cosine retrieval ranks the database by the cosine similarity of global embeddings, either from MegaDe- scriptor-L [28], an encoder pretrained on animal re-identification data, or from the general-purpose DINOv3 [21]. Off-the-shelf matchers rank the k candidates with the unadapted LoMa or RDD checkpoints and isolate the effect of adap- tation. WildFusion [27] fuses calibrated global and local similarity scores over the same k candidates. A linear probe trains an identity classifier with a class- weighted loss on MegaDescriptor-L with the backbone frozen, partially, or fully fine-tuned, testing if the identity labels are better spent on the global model. Since a domain expert typically inspects a short list of candidates, our primary metric is top-5 accuracy, the fraction of queries correctly matched to one of the five highest-ranked identities. We also report balanced top-1 accuracy, the top-1 accuracy averaged over rare and frequent individuals, weighted equally. CzechLynxLeopardID2022ZindiTurtleRecallWhaleSharkIDCzechLynxCzechLynxHyenaID2022 (a) Overexposure(b) Insufficient detail(c) Empty frame(d) Corruption(e) Blur Fig. 3. Examples of challenging images in the benchmark datasets. Raw frames that are overexposed (a), show too little of the animal to see its markings (b), contain no visible animal (c), are corrupted (d), or are blurred (e). Such images remain in the database and query sets of all methods. WildMatch: Weakly Supervised Image Matcher Adaptation9 40 60 top-5 accuracy (%) CzechLynx 85 90 Hyena 70 70 80 Leopard 40 60 80 Nyala 25 50 top-5 accuracy (%) Salamander 10502501k candidate budget k 9 10502501k candidate budget k 92 94 96 98 Sea star 70 80 Whale shark 10502501k candidate budget k 35 85 90 95 Turtle 10502501k candidate budget k 30 LoMa + WildMatch (ours)LoMa (default)WildFusionMegaDescriptor-LDINOv3-L Fig. 4. Retrieval accuracy on eight datasets. Top-5 accuracy as a function of the candidate budget k (log scale). LoMa + WildMatch (ours) is compared with the default LoMa matcher, WildFusion, and cosine retrieval with MegaDescriptor-L, which also provides the candidates for all matching methods, and with DINOv3-L (flat lines). Implementation Details. We fine-tune only the matching module (11.9M param- eters) and keep the detector and descriptor frozen. Inputs are 512-pixel images with up to 512 keypoints. Triplets are mined once on the training images with the pretrained matcher (Sec. 3.2). We train for 300 epochs with AdamW, a batch size of 32, a learning rate of 10 −5 with a cosine schedule, a weight decay of 10 −4 , and gradient clipping at 1, and report the final checkpoint. On CzechLynx, fine- tuning takes 5.1 GPU-hours on an NVIDIA RTX 4090 (24 GB). 5 Experimental Results 5.1 Retrieval Accuracy We first test whether the adapted matcher retrieves the correct individual more often than the default matcher and WildFusion, and how this depends on the number of candidates k that the matcher scores. Figure 4 reports top-5 accuracy as a function of the candidate budget k. Across the eight datasets, the fine- tuned matcher improves over its default checkpoint and over WildFusion at almost every budget. Fine-tuning also saves compute. To reach the accuracy of the fine-tuned matcher at a given k, the default matcher needs a candidate list two to five times longer. Re-ranking with any matcher lifts accuracy well above embedding retrieval alone. MegaDescriptor-L is the stronger first stage on most datasets, while DINOv3-L is better on CzechLynx and Sea star. 10T. C. Kargin, P. Kubaty et al. Table 2. Descriptor or matching module. For each matcher, the descriptor branch, the matching module, or both are fine-tuned with the same identity supervision and training data (CzechLynx, closed split, k=250). Bal. is balanced top-1 accuracy, ∆ its change from the default checkpoint, and GPU-h the training cost in GPU-hours of training steps. The matching-module row (ours) is shaded. LoMaRDD-LightGlue Fine-tuned part Top-5 Bal. ∆ GPU-hTop-5 Bal. ∆ GPU-h none (default)55.2 31.3 –56.0 33.4 – descriptor branch 56.1 28.6−2.67749.8 25.7−7.789 matching module58.334.7+3.45.156.834.4+0.95.0 both59.9 34.9 +3.684 59.0 35.7 +2.2 103 5.2 Which Component Should Be Adapted? A matcher consists of a detector and descriptor network, which produces key- points and their features, and a matching module, which assigns correspondences between them. Table 2 fine-tunes each part, and both together, on the closed CzechLynx split with the same objective and training pairs. Fine-tuning the descriptor branch lowers the balanced top-1 accuracy, whereas fine-tuning the matching module improves both matchers. Identity labels indicate which images should match, which is what the matching module scores, while the descriptors were trained for geometric repeatability and may lose it under an identity objec- tive. Fine-tuning both parts is slightly better than the matching module alone, but 16 to 21 times more expensive to train, since a trainable descriptor rules out caching the features and changes the input of the matching module at every step. We therefore adapt only the matching module in all other experiments. 5.3 Matcher Adaptation or Identity Classification The same identity labels could instead be spent on the global model. Figure 5 compares our adapted matching module with the identity classifiers of Sec. 4 as a function of training cost on CzechLynx. After 10 GPU-hours of full fine- tuning, the classifier only reaches the top-5 accuracy of the unadapted matcher and stays below 20% balanced top-1 accuracy, whereas the matcher starts at 31% before adaptation and reaches 35% after 5 GPU-hours. A classifier learns parameters for each individual, so its training is dominated by the frequently photographed ones, while the matcher is trained on image pairs and has no per- identity parameters. The classifier also cannot recognize individuals outside its label set, so it must be retrained whenever a new individual is added and cannot be evaluated under the unseen-identity protocol (Sec. 5.4). WildMatch: Weakly Supervised Image Matcher Adaptation11 0246810 training cost (GPU-hours) 0 20 40 60 accuracy (%) 55.4 58.3 Top-5 accuracy 0246810 training cost (GPU-hours) 0 10 20 30 40 19.4 34.7 Balanced top-1 accuracy LoMa + WildMatch (ours)LoMa (default)full FTpartial FTfrozenMegaDescriptor-L Fig. 5. WildMatch and classification by training cost (CzechLynx, closed split, k=250). Top-5 (left) and balanced top-1 accuracy (right) of LoMa + WildMatch check- points and of the MegaDescriptor-L classifier with the backbone frozen, partially fine- tuned (partial FT), or fully fine-tuned (full FT), as a function of GPU-hours on the same hardware. The default LoMa matcher and cosine retrieval need no training and are drawn as flat lines. 5.4 Generalization to Unseen Identities We evaluate both matchers under the unseen-identity protocol (Sec. 4). Table 3 shows that both fine-tuned matchers improve over their default checkpoints and over WildFusion at every budget and in both metrics. The gain persists at ex- haustive k=160, where the first stage plays no role, so the adaptation learns a transferable, species-specific matching prior rather than the identities it was trained on. An identity classifier cannot be applied here, since these individuals have no class. Table 3. Unseen-identity protocol on CzechLynx (Sec. 4). Top-5 and balanced top-1 accuracy (%) at candidate budgets k. Cosine retrieval does not depend on k. Fine-tuned matchers (ours) are shaded; best value per column in bold. k=10k=50 k=100 k=160 MethodTop-5 Bal. Top-5 Bal. Top-5 Bal. Top-5 Bal. MegaDescriptor-L cosine 19.6 12.0 19.6 12.0 19.6 12.0 19.6 12.0 DINOv3-L cosine20.2 11.1 20.2 11.1 20.2 11.1 20.2 11.1 WildFusion21.7 17.3 27.7 21.1 30.6 22.5 32.6 23.1 LoMa (default)22.7 18.9 30.9 23.0 35.5 25.8 40.4 26.7 LoMa + WildMatch25.019.736.627.340.930.346.131.8 RDD (default)20.9 17.4 28.4 22.2 31.9 25.0 35.2 26.7 RDD + WildMatch22.919.634.425.938.328.741.229.7 12T. C. Kargin, P. Kubaty et al. 10502501k candidate budget k 30 40 50 60 top-5 accuracy (%) CzechLynx 10502501k candidate budget k 40 60 80 Nyala 20 40 Salamander 10502501k candidate budget k 9 RDD + WildMatch (ours)RDD (default)WildFusionMegaDescriptor-LDINOv3-L Fig. 6. Generality to a second matcher. Top-5 accuracy of RDD + WildMatch (ours) and the default RDD-LightGlue matcher as a function of the candidate budget k (log scale) on three datasets, with WildFusion and cosine retrieval for reference. The advantage of fine-tuning is largest on Nyala and smaller on Salamander and CzechLynx. 5.5 Applicability Beyond LoMa The recipe is not specific to LoMa and applies to other local feature matchers. We repeat the experiment with RDD and its LightGlue matcher, which differ from LoMa in detector, descriptor, and training data. Figure 6 shows that fine- tuning the matching module again improves over the default checkpoint. At the largest budgets the advantage narrows. We attribute this to the training pairs. Most negatives are hard negatives, the other-identity images that the pretrained matcher scores highest, so the adapted matcher sees few of the easier but more numerous candidates that a long list adds. 5.6 Qualitative Results Figure 7 shows the correspondences of LoMa + WildMatch on correct top-1 re- trievals, one per dataset. They link parts of the coat, skin, or shell pattern across changes in viewpoint and illumination, for example the spots of the hyena and the leopard, the stripes of the nyala, and the yellow patches of the salamander. Because the ranking is built from these correspondences, every retrieval can be inspected. An expert can check which markings support a proposed match before accepting it, which a similarity score from a global embedding alone does not show. This matters in conservation monitoring, where a wrong identity propa- gates into population estimates. WildMatch: Weakly Supervised Image Matcher Adaptation13 (a) Czech Lynx(b) Hyena (c) Leopard (d) Nyala (e) Salamander(f) Sea Star (g) Turtle (Zindi) (h) Whale Shark Fig. 7. Qualitative results of top-1 retrievals with LoMa + WildMatch. For each dataset, a query (left) and its top-1 gallery image (right) of the same individual. Of the 350 to 420 matches found for each pair, lines show the 10 most confident. Matching uses background-removed inputs, and the matches are drawn on the original photos. 6 Conclusion We showed that general-purpose local feature matchers can be effectively special- ized to wildlife re-identification using only the identity labels already available in standard monitoring datasets. Across eight datasets, adapting the matching module improves LoMa over its pretrained checkpoint and over a competitive local–global fusion method at almost every candidate budget, and experiments with RDD show that the approach extends beyond a single matcher architec- ture. The adapted matcher also uses identity supervision more effectively than closed-set classification and retains its gains on individuals never observed during training, indicating that it learns a transferable matching prior rather than mem- orizing identities. WildMatch therefore provides a data-efficient way to specialize local correspondence models without keypoint or geometric annotations. Be- cause the resulting model can be applied to newly observed individuals without retraining and exposes the correspondences underlying each retrieval, it is well suited to practical wildlife identification workflows. These results also suggest broader directions for combining domain-adapted local matching with learned global retrieval, and for training matchers that transfer across multiple species and monitoring domains. References 1. Adam, L., Papafitsoros, K., Kovář, R., Čermák, V., Picek, L.: Overview of ani- malclef 2025: Recognizing individual animals in images. In: Working Notes of the Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum (CLEF 2025). CEUR Workshop Pro- ceedings, Madrid, Spain (2025), https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-4038/paper_231.pdf 14T. C. Kargin, P. Kubaty et al. 2. Adam, L., Čermák, V., Papafitsoros, K., Picek, L.: Wildlifereid-10k: Wildlife re- identification dataset with 10k individual animals. In: 2025 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW). p. 2090– 2100 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPRW67362.2025.00197 3. Bolger, D., Morrison, T., Vance, B., Lee, D., Farid, H.: A computer-assisted system for photographic mark–recapture analysis. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3, 813–822 (10 2012). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2012.00212.x 4. Botswana Predator Conservation Trust: Hyena id 2022. LILA BC (May 2022), https://lila.science/datasets/hyena-id-2022/ 5. Botswana Predator Conservation Trust: Leopard id 2022. LILA BC (May 2022), https://lila.science/datasets/leopard-id-2022/ 6. Carion, N., Gustafson, L., Hu, Y.T., Debnath, S., Hu, R., Suris, D., Ryali, C., Alwala, K.V., Khedr, H., Huang, A., Lei, J., Ma, T., Guo, B., Kalla, A., Marks, M., Greer, J., Wang, M., Sun, P., Rädle, R., Afouras, T., Mavroudi, E., Xu, K., Wu, T.H., Zhou, Y., Momeni, L., Hazra, R., Ding, S., Vaze, S., Porcher, F., Li, F., Li, S., Kamath, A., Cheng, H.K., Dollár, P., Ravi, N., Saenko, K., Zhang, P., Feichtenhofer, C.: Sam 3: Segment anything with concepts (2026), https://arxiv. org/abs/2511.16719 7. Chelak, I., Nepovinnykh, E., Eerola, T., Kälviäinen, H., Belykh, I.: Eden: Deep feature distribution pooling for saimaa ringed seals pattern matching (2021), https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.13979 8. Chen, G., Fu, T., Chen, H., Teng, W., Xiao, H., Zhao, Y.: Rdd: Robust feature detector and descriptor using deformable transformer. In: Proceedings of the Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference (CVPR). p. 6394–6403 (June 2025) 9. Crall, J., Stewart, C., Berger-Wolf, T., Rubenstein, D., Sundaresan, S.: Hotspotter — patterned species instance recognition. In: Proceedings of IEEE Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision. p. 230–237 (01 2013). https://doi.org/10. 1109/WACV.2013.6475023 10. Czarnota, P., Loch, J., Armatys, P., Wierzbowska, I., Matysek, M.: The monitor- ing of eurasian lynx (lynx lynx) in the gorce national park (carpathians, poland) with the use of camera trapping between 2014-2018: recommendations on the fu- ture species protection. [monitoring rysia euroazjatyckiego (lynx lynx) z użyciem fotopułapek na terenie gorczańskiego parku narodowego - wskazania do ochrony gatunku w oparciu o wyniki z okresu 2014-2018]. Studia i Materiały CEPL w Rogowie 59(2), 77–87 (2019) 11. Dlamini, N., Zyl, T.L.v.: Automated identification of individuals in wildlife popu- lation using siamese neural networks. In: 2020 7th International Conference on Soft Computing & Machine Intelligence (ISCMI). p. 224–228 (2020). https: //doi.org/10.1109/ISCMI51676.2020.9311574 12. Duľa, M., Bojda, M., Chabanne, D.B., Drengubiak, P., Ľuboslav Hrdý, Krojerová- Prokešová, J., Kubala, J., Labuda, J., Marčáková, L., Oliveira, T., Smolko, P., Váňa, M., Kutal, M.: Multi-seasonal systematic camera-trapping reveals fluctuat- ing densities and high turnover rates of carpathian lynx on the western edge of its native range. Scientific Reports 11(9236), 1–12 (2021). https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41598-021-88348-8 13. Hoffer, E., Ailon, N.: Deep metric learning using triplet network (2018), https: //arxiv.org/abs/1412.6622 14. Holmberg, J., Norman, B., Arzoumanian, Z.: Estimating population size, structure, and residency time for whale sharks rhincodon typus through WildMatch: Weakly Supervised Image Matcher Adaptation15 collaborative photo-identification. Endangered Species Research 7, 39–53 (Apr 2009). https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00186, https://w.int-res.com/ journals/esr/articles/esr00186 15. Kargin, T.C., Jasiński, W., Pardyl, A., Zieliński, B., Przewięźlikowski, M.: Spar- rta: A synthetic benchmark for evaluating spatial intelligence in visual foundation models (2026), https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.11729 16. Lindenberger, P., Sarlin, P.E., Pollefeys, M.: Lightglue: Local feature matching at light speed (2023), https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.13643 17. Lowe, D.G.: Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. Interna- tional Journal of Computer Vision 60, 91–110 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/ B:VISI.0000029664.99615.94 18. Nordström, D., Edstedt, J., Bökman, G., Astermark, J., Heyden, A., Larsson, V., Wadenbäck, M., Felsberg, M., Kahl, F.: Loma: Local feature matching revisited (2026), https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04931 19. Otarashvili, L., Subramanian, T., Holmberg, J., Levenson, J.J., Stewart, C.V.: Multispecies animal re-id using a large community-curated dataset (2024), https: //arxiv.org/abs/2412.05602 20. Picek, L., Straka, J., Jirik, M., Belotti, E., Duľa, M., Krausová, J., Bojda, M., Čermák, V., Bufka, L., Dvořák, R., Hrdý, L., Kocourek, V., Labuda, J., Toman, L., Trulík, V., Váňa, M., Kutal, M.: Czechlynx: A dataset for individual identification and pose estimation of the eurasian lynx. Scientific Data 13(511), 1–11 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-026-06853-9 21. Siméoni, O., Vo, H.V., Seitzer, M., Baldassarre, F., Oquab, M., Jose, C., Khalidov, V., Szafraniec, M., Yi, S., Ramamonjisoa, M., Massa, F., Haziza, D., Wehrstedt, L., Wang, J., Darcet, T., Moutakanni, T., Sentana, L., Roberts, C., Vedaldi, A., Tolan, J., Brandt, J., Couprie, C., Mairal, J., Jégou, H., Labatut, P., Bojanowski, P.: Dinov3 (2025), https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.10104 22. Smith, E.S., Miyaguchi, A., Palamari, S., Evangelista, D.: Ds@gt arc at animalclef 2026: Species-aware graph construction for multi-species animal re-identification (2026), https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.16453 23. Süßle, V., Heurich, M., Downs, C., Weinmann, A., Hergenröther, E.: Cnn based flank predictor for quadruped animal species. Workshop Camera Traps, AI and Ecology (2024), 10.48550/arXiv.2406.13588 24. Wahltinez, O., Wahltinez, S.J.: An open-source general purpose machine learning framework for individual animal re-identification using few-shot learning. Meth- ods in Ecology and Evolution 15(2), 373–387 (Jan 2024). https://doi.org/10. 1111/2041-210x.14278, https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ 10.1111/2041-210X.14278 25. Wang, Q.: Understanding and optimizing attention-based sparse matching for di- verse local features (2026), https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.08430 26. Zindi: Turtle recall: Conservation challenge (2022), https://zindi.world/ competitions/turtle-recall-conservation-challenge 27. Čermák, V., Picek, L., Adam, L., Neumann, L., Matas, J.: Wildfusion: Individ- ual animal identification with calibrated similarity fusion. In: Computer Vision – ECCV 2024 Workshops. p. 18–36. Springer Nature Switzerland (2025) 28. Čermák, V., Picek, L., Adam, L., Papafitsoros, K.: Wildlifedatasets: An open- source toolkit for animal re-identification. In: 2024 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV). p. 5941–5951 (2024). https:// doi.org/10.1109/WACV57701.2024.00585

Instant research discovery