arXiv subjects

Ben McEwen

Publications and source records attributed to Ben McEwen.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Active Learning for Biodiversity Monitoring: From Label Efficiency to Reliable Ecological Inference

Limited expert annotation capacity is a pervasive constraint in biodiversity monitoring. Passive acoustic recorders and camera traps generate data faster than experts can analyse them. Machine learning (ML) models can process these data at scale, but their reliability depends on the quality, quantity, and coverage of labelled samples, so expert time remains a constraint. Active learning (AL) eases this bottleneck by selecting, under a fixed annotation budget, the samples expected to improve a model most, and published evidence shows it can reduce the labels needed to reach a target performance. Monitoring programmes, however, face a broader question: how should a limited expert budget be divided so that model training, validation, and the ecological estimates built on model outputs all remain reliable? Because AL selects samples non-randomly, its labels are unsuitable for validation, calibration, or threshold selection, a tension rarely acknowledged. We synthesise AL research across acoustic and image modalities and identify gaps and opportunities. Most studies evaluate query strategies on pre-labelled benchmarks with simulated annotators; deployments in real monitoring workflows are rare and concentrate on birds and cetaceans. Bats, insects, amphibians, and fish are underrepresented, and multimodal applications remain largely unexplored. Evaluation centres on headline reductions in annotation effort, often without random-sampling baselines, per-class results, or calibration analysis, and rarely accounts for the labels required for validation. We provide a tutorial treatment of the AL loop that makes these budget decisions explicit, and a roadmap towards AL methods that support label-efficient training, validation, and trustworthy downstream ecological inference.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

BioDCASE: Active Learning for Bioacoustics

Ecological monitoring increasingly relies on machine learning models, whose performance depends on the quality and quantity of labelled data. However, obtaining these labels is costly, particularly in passive acoustic monitoring, where vast amounts of data are collected but only a small proportion can feasibly be annotated. Active learning addresses this bottleneck by prioritizing which samples should be labelled. However, progress is difficult to measure, because published methods are evaluated under different models, budgets, evaluation metrics and datasets. To address this challenge, we present the 2026 Active Learning for Bioacoustics BioDCASE challenge: a systematic evaluation of sampling methods designed to identify effective AL strategies. Participant methods were evaluated across four subsets composed of terrestrial and marine data. Across ten proposed sampling methods from seven teams, the top-ranked method achieved an area under the learning curve 26.4 % higher than random sampling at the same annotation budget, averaged over four data subsets. Significant variation in performance was observed across subsets, with the top-performing submission achieving a 67.1 % gain for the HSN subset over random sampling and a gain of 8 % for the ATBFL subset. Top-ranking submissions combined multiple acquisition signals, and diversity-based selection outperformed pure uncertainty sampling. Furthermore, there is evidence that transitioning from diversity-based to uncertainty-based selection and explicitly reducing redundancy within acquisition batches improve model training. There is also initial evidence that larger acquisition batch sizes may be increasingly beneficial later in the labelling process.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Uncertainty Calibration of Multi-Label Bird Sound Classifiers

Passive acoustic monitoring enables large-scale biodiversity assessment, but reliable classification of bioacoustic sounds requires not only high accuracy but also well-calibrated uncertainty estimates to ground decision-making. In bioacoustics, calibration is challenged by overlapping vocalisations, long-tailed species distributions, and distribution shifts between training and deployment data. The calibration of multi-label deep learning classifiers within the domain of bioacoustics has not yet been assessed. We systematically benchmark the calibration of four state-of-the-art multi-label bird sound classifiers on the BirdSet benchmark, evaluating both global, per-dataset and per-class calibration using threshold-free calibration metrics (ECE, MCS) alongside discrimination metrics (cmAP). Model calibration varies significantly across datasets and classes. While Perch v2 and ConvNeXt$_{BS}$ show better global calibration, results vary between datasets. Both models indicate consistent underconfidence, while AudioProtoPNet and BirdMAE are mostly overconfident. Surprisingly, calibration seems to be better for less frequent classes. Using simple post hoc calibration methods we demonstrate a straightforward way to improve calibration. A small labelled calibration set is sufficient to significantly improve calibration with Platt scaling, while global calibration parameters suffer from dataset variability. Our findings highlight the importance of evaluating and improving uncertainty calibration in bioacoustic classifiers.

cs.SD↗