Uncertainty Calibration of Multi-Label Bird Sound Classifiers
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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 ConvNeXtBS 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.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Nov 2025.
Builds on
25 of 46 references.
References · 25
- 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 36,960
- 2017mixup: Beyond Empirical Risk Minimizationcited by 5,155
- 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
- 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,416
- 2016Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensemblescited by 3,888
- 2022A ConvNet for the 2020scited by 3,545
- 2019When Does Label Smoothing Help?cited by 985
- 2018This Looks Like That: Deep Learning for Interpretable Image Recognitioncited by 731
- 2015Weight Uncertainty in Neural Networkscited by 554
- 2020Simple and Principled Uncertainty Estimation with Deterministic Deep Learning via Distance Awarenesscited by 389
- 2022BEATs: Audio Pre-Training with Acoustic Tokenizerscited by 378
- 2019Beyond temperature scaling: Obtaining well-calibrated multiclass probabilities with Dirichlet calibrationcited by 359
13 more
- 2021Computational bioacoustics with deep learning: a review and roadmapcited by 78
- 2021Parameterized Temperature Scaling for Boosting the Expressive Power in Post-Hoc Uncertainty Calibrationcited by 48
- 2024BirdSet: A Large-Scale Dataset for Audio Classification in Avian Bioacousticscited by 36
- 2025Can Masked Autoencoders Also Listen to Birds?cited by 26
- 2021Improving Bird Classification with Unsupervised Sound Separationcited by 25
- 2025Perch 2.0: The Bittern Lesson for Bioacousticscited by 25
- 2023Two Sides of Miscalibration: Identifying Over and Under-Confidence Prediction for Network Calibrationcited by 14
- 2025Foundation Models for Bioacoustics -- a Comparative Reviewcited by 11
- 2024AudioProtoPNet: An interpretable deep learning model for bird sound classificationcited by 10
- 2024All Thresholds Barred: Direct Estimation of Call Density in Bioacoustic Datacited by 3
- 2022Uncertainty Calibration for Deep Audio Classifierscited by 2
- 2024Labels in Extremes: How Well Calibrated are Extreme Multi-label Classifiers?cited by 2
- 2022Propagating Variational Model Uncertainty for Bioacoustic Call Label Smoothingcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.