Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study systematically benchmarks vision transformers, alternative pretraining paradigms, image downsampling trade-offs, and classical quantitative image analysis (QIA) on activated sludge microscopy classification across three distinct sample types. Evaluating these modern vision paradigms addresses a major gap in environmental monitoring, where systems have historically relied on supervised CNNs and ad-hoc resolution downsizing. The results show that transformer architectures and self-supervised approaches consistently outperform standard CNN baselines and QIA, while revealing that preserving the overall field of view is substantially more critical to classification accuracy than retaining raw pixel resolution.
Field of view matters far more than raw pixel resolution when downsampling biological microscopy imagery, where modern vision transformers decisively outperform traditional quantitative image analysis pipelines.
Microscopic image analysis has long been recognized as a promising approach for monitoring activated sludge. In recent years, deep learning-based image analysis has been increasingly adopted in this field because of its high performance. However, previous studies on microscopic image analysis of activated sludge have rarely explored transformer-based models or self-supervised foundation models and have instead relied on CNNs and supervised ImageNet pretraining. In addition, previous studies often downsampled image sizes, but the effects of downsampling have not been sufficiently investigated, and the relationship between downsampling strategies and image analysis performance remains unclear. Furthermore, no study has quantitatively compared deep learning performance with quantitative image analysis (QIA), which was widely used before the emergence of deep learning. In this study, to examine how model architecture and learning strategies affect performance in microscopic image analysis of activated sludge and to quantitatively determine whether deep learning outperforms QIA, we prepared three types of activated sludge samples, classified their microscopic images, and evaluated classification accuracy. Our results showed that transformer-based architectures and alternative pretraining methods were effective in terms of classification accuracy. Our downsampling analysis showed that using overly small images reduced accuracy, but increasing image size beyond a certain point did not improve it further. In addition, the analysis indicated that, to achieve high classification accuracy, maintaining the field of view was a more effective downsampling strategy than maintaining resolution. Finally, our comparison between deep learning and QIA showed that deep learning outperformed QIA in terms of accuracy.