Daniyar Pirlepesov Maratovich

Daniyar Pirlepesov Maratovich

*This is an algorithmically generated author record based on publicly available information.

Current Organizations / Institutes

The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article


Daniyar Pirlepesov Maratovich has a total of 9 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:


Latest Publications

  • Open Access

    Comparing Temporal Averaging and Transformer Encoders for Video-Based Cattle Behavior Classification Under Severe Class Imbalance

    by Daniyar Pirlepesov Maratovich, Dae-Yeong Kang, Mohammad Ismail, Usama Hanif, Seong-Hun Kim, Dasanayaka Lekamalage Vindya Sathsarani Dasanayaka, Reginald Gbenga Azuatalam, Muhammad Ismail Khan, Hyeon-Tae Kim

    Automated cattle behavior monitoring from video is challenging due to severe class imbalance and the need for efficient temporal modeling. We compared four architectures on 542 videos containing standing, lying down, and rumination; rumination appeared only six times, while two dataset classes were absent. ResNet-50 and EfficientNet-B3 backbones were paired with either a Transformer encoder or temporal averaging and trained with three-fold stratified cross-validation and weighted cross-entropy. EfficientNet-B3 with temporal averaging (Eff-B3 + Avg) achieved the highest out-of-fold accuracy (85.61%) and best calibration (ECE = 0.074), while requiring 41 MB and 28 ms per video. Its Transformer counterpart scored 84.13% despite four times more parameters. ResNet-50 + Transformer reached 84.69% but was poorly calibrated and storage-intensive. Frame ablation identified 16 frames per video as the best accuracy-speed trade-off. No model correctly classified any rumination example, underscoring that rumination was not learnable under the specific weighted-cross-entropy and stratified-sampling strategies evaluated here; this finding does not establish a general impossibility of learning extremely underrepresented behaviors under alternative training strategies such as focal loss, oversampling, anomaly detection, or self-supervised pre-training. Rare-class analysis, treating support ≤106 as rare, showed high-confidence rumination errors: mean confidence was 0.891, but only 1.01% of probability mass was assigned to the true class, yielding a class-wise expected calibration error of 0.891. These findings indicate that calibration post-processing cannot rescue a class with zero true positives.

  • Open Access

    Vision-Based Detection of Estrus-Related Interaction Behavior in Hanwoo Cattle Using Lightweight YOLO Models

    by Usama Hanif, Dae-Yeong Kang, Mohammad Ismail, Pirlepesov Daniyar Maratovich, Seong-Hun Kim, Hyeon-Tae Kim

    Timely estrus detection determines reproductive efficiency in Hanwoo cattle, yet visual observation is increasingly difficult as herd sizes grow and standing behavior becomes less consistently expressed. Fixed farm cameras offer a non-invasive alternative, but mounting, chin-resting and sniffing involve two overlapping animals and occur rarely, complicating automated detection. This study evaluated how annotation strategy, augmentation policy and detector choice affect detection of these cues. A surveillance dataset of 846 red–green–blue (RGB) frames, containing 200 estrus-interaction instances against 2180 posture instances, was recorded at a commercial farm. Three annotation strategies, partial bounding-box label (PBL), full single bounding-box label (FSBL) and full dual bounding-box label (FDBL), were combined with three augmentation stages and three lightweight detectors (YOLOv5n, YOLOv8n, YOLO11n), giving 27 configurations. Rare-class performance varied approximately twice as widely as overall performance and depended more on annotation and augmentation than on detector family. PBL maximized sensitivity (recall 0.718), FSBL maximized localization quality (average precision, AP50 0.798) and overall accuracy (mean average precision, mAP50 0.864), and FDBL preserved relational context (recall 0.700, AP50 0.775). Annotation and augmentation should be selected according to whether the purpose is screening candidate interactions or supporting expert confirmation. Detections represent a behavioral proxy, not physiological confirmation of estrus.