Unsupervised anomaly detection in large-scale estuarine acoustic telemetry data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acoustic telemetry data plays a vital role in understanding the behaviour and movement of aquatic animals. However, these datasets, which often consist of millions of individual data points, frequently contain anomalous movements that pose significant challenges. Traditionally, anomalous movements are identified either manually or through basic statistical methods, approaches that are time-consuming and prone to high rates of unidentified anomalies in large datasets. This study focuses on the development of automated classifiers for a large telemetry dataset comprising detections from fifty acoustically tagged dusky kob monitored in the Breede Estuary, South Africa. Using an array of 16 acoustic receivers deployed throughout the estuary between 2016 and 2021, we collected over three million individual data points. We present detailed guidelines for data pre-processing, resampling strategies, labelling process, feature engineering, data splitting methodologies, and the selection and interpretation of machine learning and deep learning models for anomaly detection. Among the evaluated models, neural networks autoencoder (NN-AE) demonstrated superior performance, aided by our proposed threshold-finding algorithm. NN-AE achieved a high recall with no false normal (i.e., no misclassifications of anomalous movements as normal patterns), a critical factor in ensuring that no true anomalies are overlooked. In contrast, other models exhibited false normal fractions exceeding 0.9, indicating they failed to detect the majority of true anomalies; a significant limitation for telemetry studies where undetected anomalies can distort interpretations of movement patterns. While the NN-AE's performance highlights its reliability and robustness in detecting anomalies, it faced challenges in accurately learning normal movement patterns when these patterns gradually deviated from anomalous ones.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".