Investigation of Different CNN-Based Models for Improved Bird Sound Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automatic bird sound classification plays an important role in monitoring and further protecting biodiversity. Recent advances in acoustic sensor networks and deep learning techniques provide a novel way for continuously monitoring birds. Previous studies have proposed various deep learning based classification frameworks for recognizing and classifying birds. In this study, we compare different classification models and selectively fuse them to further improve bird sound classification performance. Specifically, we not only use the same deep learning architecture with different inputs but also employ two different deep learning architectures for constructing the fused model. Three types of time-frequency representations (TFRs) of bird sounds are investigated aiming to characterize different acoustic components of birds: Mel-spectrogram, harmonic-component based spectrogram, and percussive-component based spectrogram. In addition to different TFRs, a different deep learning architecture, SubSpectralNet, is employed to classify bird sounds. Experimental results on classifying 43 bird species show that fusing selected deep learning models can effectively increase the classification performance. Our best fused model can achieve a balanced accuracy of 86.31% and a weighted F1-score of 93.31%.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".