mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

BioDCASE: Active Learning for Bioacoustics

arXiv 2609.15255 ↗First posted 14 Sep 2026cs.LG cs.SDcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Sep 2026.

Builds on

19 of 38 references.

References · 19

  1. 2022Active Learning on a Budget: Opposite Strategies Suit High and Low Budgetscited by 131
  2. 2021Batch Active Learning at Scalecited by 127
  3. 2021On Statistical Bias In Active Learning: How and When To Fix Itcited by 72
  4. 2018Practical Obstacles to Deploying Active Learningcited by 68
  5. 2020Towards Robust and Reproducible Active Learning Using Neural Networkscited by 53
  6. 2024BirdSet: A Large-Scale Dataset for Audio Classification in Avian Bioacousticscited by 36
  7. 2025Can Masked Autoencoders Also Listen to Birds?cited by 26
  8. 2023Navigating the Pitfalls of Active Learning Evaluation: A Systematic Framework for Meaningful Performance Assessmentcited by 25
  9. 2025Perch 2.0: The Bittern Lesson for Bioacousticscited by 25
  10. 2025Foundation Models for Bioacoustics -- a Comparative Reviewcited by 11
  11. 2024Towards Deep Active Learning in Avian Bioacousticscited by 10
  12. 2025The Search for Squawk: Agile Modeling in Bioacousticscited by 8
7 more
  1. 2024A decade of DCASE: Achievements, practices, evaluations and future challengescited by 7
  2. 2025Perch 2.0 transfers 'whale' to underwater taskscited by 7
  3. 2026Finding Needles in the Haystack: Transductive Active Labeling in Ecologycited by 3
  4. 2026Adaptive Diversity-Uncertainty Active Learning with Redundancy Control for Bioacoustic Event Classificationcited by 2
  5. 2026Determinantal point process sampling for bioacoustic active learningcited by 2
  6. 2026BoSS: A Best-of-Strategies Selector as an Oracle for Deep Active Learningcited by 1
  7. 2026bacpipe: a Python package to make bioacoustic deep learning models accessiblecited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.