Lightweight individual cow identification based on Ghost combined with attention mechanism.

Individual cow identification is a prerequisite for intelligent dairy farming management, and is important for achieving accurate and informative dairy farming. Computer vision-based approaches are widely considered because of their non-contact and practical advantages. In this study, a method based on the combination of Ghost and attention mechanism is proposed to improve ReNet50 to achieve non-contact individual recognition of cows. In the model, coarse-grained features of cows are extracted using a large sensory field of cavity convolution, while reducing the number of model parameters to some extent. ResNet50 consists of two Bottlenecks with different structures, and a plug-and-play Ghost module is inserted between the two Bottlenecks to reduce the number of parameters and computation of the model using common linear operations without reducing the feature map. In addition, the convolutional block attention module (CBAM) is introduced after each stage of the model to help the model to give different weights to each part of the input and extract the more critical and important information. In our experiments, a total of 13 cows' side view images were collected to train the model, and the final recognition accuracy of the model was 98.58%, which was 4.8 percentage points better than the recognition accuracy of the original ResNet50, the number of model parameters was reduced by 24.85 times, and the model size was only 3.61 MB. In addition, to verify the validity of the model, it is compared with other networks and the results show that our model has good robustness. This research overcomes the shortcomings of traditional recognition methods that require human extraction of features, and provides theoretical references for further animal recognition.

Introduction

As dairy farming continues to expand, it has led to dairy farm management monitoring becoming the most important issue. Traditional manual monitoring of livestock with high accuracy and consistency cannot be performed by experience and eyesight alone [1], and the identification of cows and statistical cow data by manual means is completely unsuitable for modern, large-scale dairy farming [2]. Traditional methods that do not rely on manual identification of livestock are permanent damage methods with inscribed ear branding, external tagging methods with ear tags, and external device tagging methods represented by radio frequency identification (RFID) [3]. These methods can cause irreversible harm to livestock and have the disadvantage of being unsustainable and reusable [4-7]. As a result, there is a growing need to replace traditional recognition methods with computer vision techniques [8].

In recent years, due to the maturity of deep learning technology, intelligent individual recognition technology based on deep learning technology has been applied to various fields, and intelligent technology has been widely used, especially in the field of image recognition has achieved fruitful application results [9, 10]. The deep learning methods, represented by convolutional neural networks, can accurately learn, forecast and classify targets in images [11]. Bello et al. [12] proposed a method for detection and monitoring of cows using computer vision technology, capable of tracking and identifying cow targets in video experiments with 89% recognition accuracy. Hu et al. [13] used yolo to detect each part of the cow, and then segmented each part of the cow using a partial segmentation algorithm with frame difference and segmentation span analysis, trained different recognition models separately, and then performed feature fusion to finally identify the individual cow identity accurately, with a final recognition accuracy of 98.36%. Mcdonagh et al. [14] performed continuous video monitoring of 46 cows to obtain datasets of different behaviors, and used convolutional neural networks to recognize and classify their behaviors with a final average recognition accuracy of 86.42%. Li et al. [15] proposed a basic motion behavior based on cow skeleton and a hybrid convolutional algorithm that effectively controls the number and robustness of model parameters while increasing the depth of the 3D convolutional network. Experimentally, 300 cow videos containing three specific motion behaviors were selected for testing, and the results showed that the final classification ACC of their method was 91.80% after 5-fold cross-validation. Shen et al. [16] proposed a method for real-time monitoring of cow regurgitation behavior based on edge computing. The three-axis acceleration signals of cows are collected and processed in real time using an edge device designed by the authors, adaptive thresholds are determined, and finally, the real-time identification of cow regurgitation behavior is accomplished at the edge device side, and the method does not require a lot of computational time and resources. Li et al. [17] proposed a convolutional neural network-based method for automated and accurate individual recognition of cows, using a residual learning inverse convolutional network to obtain a training dataset after denoising the cow images, and an improved InceptionV3 network as the main network for training to recognize individual cows with the cow tail pattern as the recognition feature. Achour et al. [18] developed a non-invasive system based entirely on image analysis to identify individual cows and their behavior using the cow head pattern as a mention feature. However, the small area of the head heel has limitations as a feature point for identifying individual cows, which has an impact on the final recognition results. Xiao et al. [19] used a modified mask R-CNN to segment and extract the back pattern of cows for cows in natural barns, and then trained an SVM classifier using a dataset consisting of patterns, and finally identified individual cows.

In this research, a lightweight convolutional neural network model using a combination of Ghost and CBAM is constructed, and the model is trained using our own dataset that was taken in a real barn, which represents a challenging machine vision situation where cows are photographed under different lighting, pollution and complex backgrounds. In this paper, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our model on complex and variable data sets and provide a systematic analysis of the various modules of the model.

Materials and methods

Image acquisition and expansion

The experimental data of this research were collected from Dongfeng cattle farm in Jilin Province and Changchun Boyu agricultural cattle breeding training base. The acquisition took place in July 2021 with a Canon EOS 5D Mark II and a maximum resolution of 5616×3744 pixels. The images of Holstein cows were taken from different angles in a real cattle environment with a handheld camera while the cows were standing and moving freely. Holstein cows have obvious black-and-white patterns, and the area with the most black-and-white interlacing is the cow’s side, which can facilitate the recognition of convolutional neural network compared with other parts. In addition, a large amount of data is needed to train the convolutional neural network, and a larger area of black-and-white patterns on the side of the cow taken from different angles can also provide more data for training the convolutional neural network. A total of 13 cows were collected in this study, containing 3772 images of cows with complex backgrounds, and the cow numbers were customized as 1 to 13, as shown in Fig 1.

Fig 1

Individual data from 13 cows used in this research.

Since the size of the dataset has a great impact on the performance of the training network, the model is prone to overfitting when the feature space dimension of the samples is larger than the number of training samples [20]. To enhance the robustness and generalization of the network, a python scripting algorithm was used to divide the dataset into a 70% training set, a 20% validation set, and a 10% test set, the python scripting algorithm automatically divides datasets quickly and efficiently without overlapping images between datasets. Usually, model training requires sufficient sample size to avoid overfitting of the model [21], therefore, data enhancement is performed on the training set, and the traditional ways to expand the data set are image flipping, random cropping, and color dithering, etc. In this study, image rotation is chosen to randomly flip the data from three angles respectively, and the final sample size of the training set is increased to three times of the original one.

Methods

In this research, ResNet50 is selected as the skeleton network, and firstly, ResNet50 is reduced so that the number of clump depth layers of the model is reduced, and then a series of improvements of the model are carried out on this basis. Considering cows with distinct and large range of feature points, features are extracted using null convolution in the first layer of the network. Then a plug-and-play ghost module is introduced into the model to make the model lightweight. Since the twisting during the cow’s movement causes a certain degree of distortion of the spots, channel space attention is used in the model so that the model pays attention not only to the channel information of the features but also to the spatial information of the features. The final part of the model uses an optimization structure of a global pooling layer plus a fully connected layer to control the computational load of the model, and the model structure is shown in Fig 2. Stage1, Stage2 and Stage3 are the main structure of the model, and different numbers of ghosts are added in an incremental manner, following the rule that the further the convolutional neural network is in the forward propagation process, the more feature maps are added and the more convolutional kernels are required, which greatly reduces the number of model parameters while ensuring the depth of the model.

Fig 2

The model structure built in this research.

Dilated convolution

In the original Resnet50 model, the first layer uses a 7×7 ordinary convolution to extract features, however, the large size of the convolution will weigh down the number of parameters of the model. To control the number of model parameters and to keep the perceptual field of the output unit constant, we choose to use dilated convolution instead of normal convolution. In the model, a 3×3 ordinary convolution is used, and its dilation rate is set to 3, which increases the receptive field of the convolution kernel, so that the 3×3 ordinary convolution becomes a 7×7 dilated convolution with an effective receptive field of 7×7, as shown in Fig 3, and the number of parameters of the model does not increase, but still only the computational effort consumed by the 3×3 convolution, which can effectively reduce the number of parameters of the model while preserving the large receptive field.

Fig 3

Dilated convolution of 7×7 size used in the model.

Ghost module

The stacked convolutional blocks will extract a large number of feature maps with many duplicate features resulting in feature redundancy and a large number of model parameters. In our experiments, considering that cows have obvious speckle characteristics, we discard Bottleneck2 inside each stage of the model and choose to insert the plug-and-play GhostBottleneck between Bottleneck1 and Bottleneck2 in each stage to reduce the number of parameters and computation of the model. This module was proposed by Han et al. [22], using the linear variation in the module to generate feature maps at a small cost can effectively solve the problem of redundant feature maps in the model. Ghost uses a small number of convolution kernels to extract features from the Bottleneck1 output, and then further performs a cheaper linear variation operation on this part of the feature map, and finally generates the final feature map as the input to Bottleneck2 by the concat operation, as shown in Fig 4.

Fig 4

The GhostBottleneck structure used in the model.

Convolutional block attention module

We choose to introduce improved CBAM modules after each stage of the model to improve the recognition accuracy of the model, and a total of three CBAM modules are introduced. The Convolutional block attention module (CBAM) attention mechanism proposed in 2018 takes into account the features of the model channel and space, allowing the network to focus on the "what" of the image as well as the "where" of the objects in the image [23]. The CBAM takes into account the features of the model channel and space, and the use of this attention in individual cow identification allows the model to better focus on each cow’s spot and find where the spot is located, with the structure shown in Fig 5. The CBAM module introduced in the model can help the model assign different weights to each part of the input to extract more critical and important information, so that the model can make more accurate judgments without bringing more overhead to the model’s computation and storage. After CBAM, the new feature map will get the attention weights in the channel and spatial dimensions, which greatly improves the connection of each feature in the channel and space, and is more conducive to extracting the effective features of the target.

Fig 5

The CBAM structure used in the model.

Results and discussion

Experimental environment and parameter settings

The deep learning framework used in this experiment was pytorch 1.8.0. The version of Torchvision was 2.2.4 and the computer configuration was an Intel Core i7-8700 CPU running at 3.20 GHz. It was equipped with an Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 graphics card. The adapter was an Intel UHD Graphics 630. The software was CUDA API version 0.9.10, based on the Python 3.8.3 programming language and integrated with the PyCharm2020development environment.

To better evaluate the difference between the true and predicted values, a batch training approach was used to divide the training and testing process into multiple batches, each containing 32 images. The loss function uses cross-entropy loss, and the weight initialization method uses Xavier with an initialization bias of 0. The hyperparameters are set as shown in Table 1, where the initial learning rate of the model is 0.001 and the learning rate decreases by 0.1 every 10 epochs. the model uses a softmax classifier, and the input images are uniformly compressed to 224 × 224 pixels using an interpolation algorithm in order to obtain a high training speed while maintaining a good classification rate.

Table 1

Hyperparameter setting.

Hyperparameters	Values
Classes	13
Batch size	32
Epoch	50
Optimizer	SGD
Learning rate	0.001
Momentum	0.9

Ablation experiments

Ablation experiments were conducted on this experimental model, and the same data set and experimental environment were used to train the model in each stage separately to prove the effectiveness of the used modules, and the results are shown in Table 2. At the beginning of this experiment, ResNet50 was layer-reduced to obtain Model A. The number of parameters was greatly reduced, and the model recognition accuracy was not affected, the improvement and construction of the model based on the A. Model B is to use the first layer of the model using dilated convolution instead of normal convolution to extract features using large sensory fields to improve recognition accuracy to a certain extent, while the number of model parameters is reduced. Model C uses the plug-and-play Ghost module on top of B. Using the linear operation of Ghost, the number of parameters of the model is reduced to 923,125 without reducing the number of feature maps, and the model size is significantly reduced. Finally, CBAM attention mechanism is introduced after each stage to ensure that the number of model parameters grows within our acceptable range and to improve the model recognition accuracy, our model final recognition accuracy is 98.58%, which is 4.25 percentage points higher than the original ResNet50, the number of model parameters is reduced by 24.85 times, and the model size is only 3.61 MB. This result proves the effectiveness of the module used in our model.

Table 2

Add module comparison results.

Model	Dilated Convolution	Ghost	CBAM	Accuracy (%)	parameters	Model size (MB)
ResNet50				94.33	23,534,669	89.78
A				94.88	1,694,925	6.47
B	√			95.51	1,687,437	6.44
C	√	√		96.54	923,125	3.52
Ours	√	√	√	98.58	947,226	3.61

Model performance validation

To verify the effectiveness of the model, we compare it with other network models respectively, keeping the above training parameters and training methods, and train the convolutional neural network model using a cow dataset in a complex context, and the results are shown in Table 3. In the classical CNN model, ResNeXt and Google net have good results in recognition accuracy, but are still lower than the recognition accuracy of our model. Our model is much lower than ResNeXt and GoogLeNet in terms of both FLOPs and model size. While ShuffleNetV2 and MobileNetV3, which are famous for their lightweight, do have lower FLOPs than our model, but the single use of the size of FLOPs is not an objective measure of whether the model is lightweight or not [24]. From the model size, our model size is only 3.61MB and the recognition accuracy is much higher than ShuffleNetV2 and MobileNetV3. The reason why MobileNetV3 has a lower recognition accuracy is due to the use of NAS technology in MobileNetV3 model to automatically optimize the model with ImageNet as the dataset [25], which will greatly reduce the number of parameters of the model, but the generalization of the model is not high, and therefore it does not show a high recognition accuracy on cow dataset. In comparison with newer models, two models proposed in 2021, EfficientNet v2 and PVT, are worse than ours in terms of both recognition accuracy and FLOPs. PVT, as the backbone network of Transformer, has almost no bias induction, leading to higher overfitting risk on small data as well as high computational effort [26], with a computational speed of 1.86G and a model size of 23.98MB, which is not light enough. As can be seen in Fig 6, although GoogLeNet and our model are almost equal, GoogLeNet has instability in validation. Our model achieves 70% in the first iteration with better performance. It can be seen that the lightweight convolutional neural network model constructed in this study can greatly reduce the number of model parameters while ensuring recognition accuracy, which can identify individual cows faster, save recognition time and breeding costs in real dairy farms, and better meet the application needs of real complex dairy farm environments.

Table 3

Performance analysis results of different models.

Architecture	Validation accuracy (%)	FLOPs	Model size (MB)	Time (s)
ResNeXt	95.65	4.26G	87.76	0.2703
GoogLeNet	97.96	2G	21.04	0.2088
ShuffleNetV2	85.87	591.08M	5.26	0.3068
MobileNetV3	83.82	262.12M	8.52	0.2270
EfficientNet v2	87.64	2.975G	22.39	0.4006
PVT	90.57	1.86G	23.98	0.2070
Ours	98.58	627.69M	3.61	0.2410

Fig 6

Comparison results of different network models: A is training accuracy of model, B is validation accuracy of model.

Comparison with lightweight models used by other researchers

The method of identifying cows in this study was compared with the methods proposed by other researchers studying cows and the results are shown in Table 4. The literature [27] achieved recognition of cow rump by fine-tuning mobilenet, and the final recognition accuracy was 99.76%, but the mod size was 9.25 MB, which was more than two times larger than our model. The literature [28] uses ReXNet 3D for cow behavior recognition and its model size is 14.3 MB with low accuracy, which is 10.69 MB larger than our model, in addition, its FLOPs are 15.8 G, which is also much larger than our model. Finally, compared with our previous work [29], The model in this study has a good performance improvement in both recognition accuracy and model lightweight, overcoming the deficiencies in recognition accuracy caused by complex backgrounds and speckle distortion from the spatial dimension, improving 0.63 percentage points compared to previous work, and also reducing the model size by 4.97 MB using the linear operation of ghost, making the model more lightweight.

Table 4

Comparison of model performance results with other researchers.

Method	Accuracy (%)	Model size (MB)	FLOPs
[27]	99.76	9.25	581.71M
[28]	95.00	14.3	15.80G
[29]	97.95	8.58	463.28M
Ours	98.58	3.61	627.69M

Conclusions

In order to further improve the accuracy, stability and real time of cow identification, and to explore new methods of cow identification with stronger practical application capabilities to promote the development of intelligent cattle farming methods. In this research, we propose a convolutional neural network based on Ghost combined with CBAM for extracting image features to identify cows. Using a deep learning convolutional neural network with a large network resnet50 as the skeleton network. First, the large convolution kernel in the first layer is replaced by a small convolution kernel, which is inflated to maintain the perceptual field of the large convolution kernel. Then use plug-and-play ghost module in the model to reduce the model computation, and introduce channel and spatial attention CBAM behind each combined stacked stage, while focusing on more important features from both spatial and channel dimensions to improve the model recognition accuracy. The final model trained and recognized the lateral view images of the collected 13 cows with an average recognition rate of 98.58%, a model size of 3.61MB, and model flops of 827.69M. In comparison with other classical networks, the results show that the model in this study has the lowest number of model parameters while maintaining a high recognition accuracy. Compared with the models proposed by other researchers, the results show that our model has lower model size and FLOPs while maintaining high recognition accuracy. The identification method proposed in this study is a breakthrough and improvement on previous work, and the proposed method can provide a scientific basis for individual identification of dairy cows under practical application, and also lay the theoretical foundation for individual identification of other animals.

Ethical statement

The cow data used in this study were taken from the local farm, and the farmer’s consent has been obtained when taking photos of the cows. The cows used for image shooting are not supervised by the regulatory authorities. No harm has been caused to the cows during the data collection process and the research experiment. The research content does not involve ethics, so ethical approval is not required.

2 Aug 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tao Song

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1. The data set constructed by itself is not convincing, and the small number of pictures in the data set is even less convincing. The data set should include training data, validation data, and test data. To avoid overlap between training data and test data, training data and test data should come from different data sets.

2. There are many separate drawings and annotations in the paper, for example, Figure 2. Please check carefully and make modifications.

3. When using abbreviations, you should give the full name of the noun before using the abbreviation.

4. It is mentioned in the paper that empty convolution is used to replace ordinary convolution. Please explain the reason for doing so.

5. The ghost module and the convolutional blocking attention module are mentioned to improve ReNet50. Please explain why these two modules are used to improve ReNet50 instead of other modules.

6. The experimental results are not enough to prove that the improved model has a high recognition accuracy. It is hoped that the author can supplement the experiments to prove that the model is more competitive than other models.

7. In terms of identification of cows, heuristic algorithms (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41540-022-00233-w, DOI: 10.1109 / TCBB. 2021.3127271) and self-attention (DOI: 10.1186/ S12864-022-08687-2) and other deep learning models also have great application potential. I hope the author can make a reasonable introduction and analysis.

Reviewer #2: Thanks for your contribution, your work is complete, but some experimental procedures need to be more clearly explained. 1. The explanation of CBAM in the “methodology theory” chapter is redundant with the content in “Convolutional block attention module” chapter. 2. Could you explain stage 1,2,3 in Figure 3, and if they are Ghost Modules, what's the difference between them? 3. Since it is a model built on the basis of ResNet50, why not compare it with ResNet50? 4. The models compared in this paper have been proposed for a long time. Has there been any research on the individual recognition models in recent years?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10 Aug 2022

Dear Editor and Reviewers，

Thank you for your valuable comments on " Lightweight individual cow identification based on Ghost combined with attention mechanism "(ID: PONE-D-22-15687). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The revised part has been used to track revisions and is named "revised manuscript with track changes" to be uploaded as a separate manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Reviewer #1:

1. Training data and test data overlap

Answer: Thank you very much, I am Sorry for your misunderstanding due to my writing, we have enriched and refined the "data collection and processing" in the manuscript. Our data set is collected from the real farm, and all data has been uploaded to figshare. In this experiment, the data set is divided into 70% of the training set, 20% of the verification set and 10% of the test set. There is no overlapping image between the training data and the test data.

2. There are many separate drawings and annotations in the paper, for example, Figure 2. Please check carefully and make modifications.

Answer: Thanks for the reminder, we have revised it.

3. When using abbreviations, you should give the full name of the noun before using the abbreviation.

Answer: Thanks for the reminder, The full name of the noun has been given before using abbreviations.

4. It is mentioned in the paper that empty convolution is used to replace ordinary convolution. Please explain the reason for doing so.

Answer: Thank you for your comments. In Section 3.1, we refine the reasons for using void convolution instead of ordinary convolution. Ordinary convolution cannot take into account both receptive field and parameter quantity. In order to lighten the model, we choose to use empty convolution that can satisfy large receptive field and less parameter quantity.

5. The ghost module and the convolutional blocking attention module are mentioned to improve ReNet50. Please explain why these two modules are used to improve ReNet50 instead of other modules.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable opinions, firstly, resnet50 is a classical deep convolutional neural network and can be further lightweight. Secondly, as a deep convolution neural network, resnet50 will generate a large number of similar feature maps in the process of calculating features, and ghost module can efficiently generate these similar feature maps through simple linear operation. In addition, the structure of ghost module is very similar to that of resnetblock, so this study uses ghost module to improve resnet50. The addition of attention mechanism is only to further improve the accuracy of the model.

6. The experimental results are not enough to prove that the improved model has a high recognition accuracy. It is hoped that the author can supplement the experiments to prove that the model is more competitive than other models.

Answer: Thank you for your comments, In the manuscript, we compared the model of this study with other classical convolutional neural network models, in which we supplemented the performance comparison of the new model just proposed in the last two years. In addition, we compared the model with the model proposed by other researchers in recent years for individual identification of cows, and compared it with our previous studies. The results showed that our model was improved compared with previous studies, and its performance was better than that of other researchers.

7. In terms of identification of cows, heuristic algorithms (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41540-022-00233-w, DOI: 10.1109 / TCBB. 2021.3127271) and self-attention (DOI: 10.1186/ S12864-022-08687-2) and other deep learning models also have great application potential. I hope the author can make a reasonable introduction and analysis.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comments. We carefully read the two articles recommended by you and cited self-attention (DOI: 10.1186/s12864-022-08687-2), which enriched our manuscript.

Special thanks to you for your good comments.

Reviewer #2:

1. The explanation of CBAM in the “methodology theory” chapter is redundant with the content in “Convolutional block attention module” chapter.

Answer: Thanks to your valuable comments, we found that it is indeed a duplicate, so we have deleted it, enriched and refined the " Convolutional block attention module"

2. Could you explain stage 1,2,3 in Figure 3, and if they are Ghost Modules, what's the difference between them?

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion, fig. 3 is the model we built, in which stage1, stage2 and stage3 are added with different numbers of ghost in a progressive manner to ensure the depth of the model. At the same time, it follows the rule that the more the feature maps in the forward propagation process of the convolution neural network, the more convolution kernels are required.

3. Since it is a model built on the basis of ResNet50, why not compare it with ResNet50?

Answer: Thank you for your comments, the comparison with resnet50 is not included in the " Model performance validation". In order to better show the effectiveness of the methods we used to improve, we put the comparison results between the model and the original model resnet50 in the " Ablation experiments".

4. The models compared in this paper have been proposed for a long time. Has there been any research on the individual recognition models in recent years?

Answer: Thank you for your comments, in " Model performance validation ", the models we compare are all classical convolutional neural network models. According to your opinion, we have added two new models, EfficientNet v2 (2021) and PVT (2021). In addition, we compared with other methods of studying cows in recent years, and the results are shown in the manuscript.

Special thanks to you for your good comments.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper.

We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx

Click here for additional data file.

19 Sep 2022

Lightweight individual cow identification based on Ghost combined with attention mechanism

PONE-D-22-15687R1

Dear Dr. Gong,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Tao Song

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The use of accurate and informative dairy farming is very interesting, and the authors have addressed all the comments in this revised version.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

20 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-15687R1

Lightweight individual cow identification based on Ghost combined with attention mechanism

Dear Dr. Gong:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Tao Song

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE