AI in Paleontology
Yu, C.; Qin, F.; Watanabe, A.; Yao, W.; Li, Y.; Qin, Z.; Liu, Y.; Wang, H.; Jiangzuo, Q.; Hsiang, A. Y.; Ma, C.; Rayfield, E.; Benton, M. J.; Xu, X.
Show abstract
Accumulating data have led to the emergence of data-driven paleontological studies, which reveal an unprecedented picture of evolutionary history. However, the fast-growing quantity and complication of data modalities make data processing laborious and inconsistent, while also lacking clear benchmarks to evaluate data collection and generation, and the performances of different methods on similar tasks. Recently, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is widely practiced across scientific disciplines, but has not become mainstream in paleontology where manual workflows are still typical. In this study, we review more than 70 paleontological AI studies since the 1980s, covering major tasks including micro-and macrofossil classification, image segmentation, and prediction. These studies feature a wide range of techniques such as Knowledge Based Systems (KBS), neural networks, transfer learning, and many other machine learning methods to automate a variety of paleontological research workflows. Here, we discuss their methods, datasets, and performance and compare them with more conventional AI studies. We attribute the recent increase in paleontological AI studies to the lowering bar in training and deployment of AI models rather than real progress. We also present recently developed AI implementations such as diffusion model content generation and Large Language Models (LLMs) to speculate how these approaches may interface with paleontological research. Even though AI has not yet flourished in paleontological research, successful implementation of AI is growing and show promise for transformative effect on the workflow in paleontological research in the years to come. HighlightsO_LIFirst systematic review of AI applications in paleontology. C_LIO_LIThere is a 10 to 20-year gap between AI in paleontology and mainstream studies. C_LIO_LIRecent progress in paleontological AI studies is likely a result of lowering bar in training and deployment. C_LIO_LIFuture direction discussed for interactions between paleontology and AI. C_LI
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- ML-morph: A fast, accurate and general approach for automated detection and landmarking of biological structures in images 95%
- rphenoscate: An R package for semantic-aware evolutionary analyses of anatomical traits 94%
- PENet: A phenotype encoding network for automatic extraction and representation of morphological discriminative features 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Computed tomographic analysis of the dental system of three Jurassic ceratopsians: implications for the evolution of the tooth replacement pattern and diet in early-diverging ceratopsians 90%
- MorphoFeatures: unsupervised exploration of cell types, tissues and organs in volume electron microscopy 90%
- InsectBrainDatabase - A unified platform to manage, share, and archive morphological and functional data 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- A pipeline for assessing the quality of iNaturalist data and images and the importance of metadata and image quality control when using crowd-sourced databases. 93%
- Predicting species distributions in the open ocean with convolutional neural networks. 91%
- A note on predator-prey dynamics in radiocarbon datasets 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.