Human vs. machine: identification of bat species from their echolocation calls by humans and by artificial neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated remote ultrasound detectors allow large amounts of data on bat presence and activity to be collected. Processing of such data involves identifying bat species from their echolocation calls. Automated species identification has the potential to provide more consistent, predictable, and potentially higher levels of accuracy than identification by humans. In contrast, identification by humans permits flexibility and intelligence in identification, as well as the incorporation of features and patterns that may be difficult to quantify. We compared humans with artificial neural networks (ANNs) in their ability to classify short recordings of bat echolocation calls of variable signal to noise ratios; these sequences are typical of those obtained from remote automated recording systems that are often used in large-scale ecological studies. We presented 45 recordings (1–4 calls) produced by known species of bats to ANNs and to 26 human participants with 1 month to 23 years of experience in acoustic identification of bats. Humans correctly classified 86% of recordings to genus and 56% to species; ANNs correctly identified 92% and 62%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the performance of ANNs and that of humans, but ANNs performed better than about 75% of humans. There was little relationship between the experience of the human participants and their classification rate. However, humans with <1 year of experience performed worse than others. Currently, identification of bat echolocation calls by humans is suitable for ecological research, after careful consideration of biases. However, improvements to ANNs and the data that they are trained on may in future increase their performance to beyond those demonstrated by humans.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".