Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Detecting and reducing heterogeneity of error i...

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Detecting and reducing heterogeneity of error in acoustic classification

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Detecting and reducing heterogeneity of error in acoustic classification. / Metcalf, Oliver C.; Barlow, Jos; Bas, Yves et al.
In: Methods in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 13, No. 11, 30.11.2022, p. 2559-2571.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Metcalf, OC, Barlow, J, Bas, Y, Berenguer, E, Devenish, C, França, F, Marsden, S, Smith, C & Lees, AC 2022, 'Detecting and reducing heterogeneity of error in acoustic classification', Methods in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 2559-2571. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.13967

APA

Metcalf, O. C., Barlow, J., Bas, Y., Berenguer, E., Devenish, C., França, F., Marsden, S., Smith, C., & Lees, A. C. (2022). Detecting and reducing heterogeneity of error in acoustic classification. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 13(11), 2559-2571. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.13967

Vancouver

Metcalf OC, Barlow J, Bas Y, Berenguer E, Devenish C, França F et al. Detecting and reducing heterogeneity of error in acoustic classification. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2022 Nov 30;13(11):2559-2571. Epub 2022 Aug 31. doi: 10.1111/2041-210x.13967

Author

Metcalf, Oliver C. ; Barlow, Jos ; Bas, Yves et al. / Detecting and reducing heterogeneity of error in acoustic classification. In: Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2022 ; Vol. 13, No. 11. pp. 2559-2571.

Bibtex

@article{a25a3417209446a2b29611ce97624526,
title = "Detecting and reducing heterogeneity of error in acoustic classification",
abstract = "Passive acoustic monitoring can be an effective method for monitoring species, allowing the assembly of large audio datasets, removing logistical constraints in data collection and reducing anthropogenic monitoring disturbances. However, the analysis of large acoustic datasets is challenging and fully automated machine learning processes are rarely developed or implemented in ecological field studies. One of the greatest uncertainties hindering the development of these methods is spatial generalisability—can an algorithm trained on data from one place be used elsewhere? We demonstrate that heterogeneity of error across space is a problem that could go undetected using common classification accuracy metrics. Second, we develop a method to assess the extent of heterogeneity of error in a random forest classification model for six Amazonian bird species. Finally, we propose two complementary ways to reduce heterogeneity of error, by (i) accounting for it in the thresholding process and (ii) using a secondary classifier that uses contextual data. We found that using a thresholding approach that accounted for heterogeneity of precision error reduced the coefficient of variation of the precision score from a mean of 0.61 ± 0.17 (SD) to 0.41 ± 0.25 in comparison to the initial classification with threshold selection based on F‐score. The use of a secondary, contextual classification with thresholding selection accounting for heterogeneity of precision reduced it further still, to 0.16 ± 0.13, and was significantly lower than the initial classification in all but one species. Mean average precision scores increased, from 0.66 ± 0.4 for the initial classification, to 0.95 ± 0.19, a significant improvement for all species. We recommend assessing—and if necessary correcting for—heterogeneity of precision error when using automated classification on acoustic data to quantify species presence as a function of an environmental, spatial or temporal predictor variable.",
keywords = "Applied Ecology, Behavioural ecology, Biodiversity ecology, Conservation ecology, Global change ecology, Movement ecology, Population ecology, RESEARCH ARTICLE, RESEARCH ARTICLES, automated signal recognition, autonomous recording unit, bioacoustics, ecoacoustics, machine‐learning",
author = "Metcalf, {Oliver C.} and Jos Barlow and Yves Bas and Erika Berenguer and Christian Devenish and Filipe Fran{\c c}a and Stuart Marsden and Charlotte Smith and Lees, {Alexander C.}",
year = "2022",
month = nov,
day = "30",
doi = "10.1111/2041-210x.13967",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "2559--2571",
journal = "Methods in Ecology and Evolution",
issn = "2041-210X",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "11",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Detecting and reducing heterogeneity of error in acoustic classification

AU - Metcalf, Oliver C.

AU - Barlow, Jos

AU - Bas, Yves

AU - Berenguer, Erika

AU - Devenish, Christian

AU - França, Filipe

AU - Marsden, Stuart

AU - Smith, Charlotte

AU - Lees, Alexander C.

PY - 2022/11/30

Y1 - 2022/11/30

N2 - Passive acoustic monitoring can be an effective method for monitoring species, allowing the assembly of large audio datasets, removing logistical constraints in data collection and reducing anthropogenic monitoring disturbances. However, the analysis of large acoustic datasets is challenging and fully automated machine learning processes are rarely developed or implemented in ecological field studies. One of the greatest uncertainties hindering the development of these methods is spatial generalisability—can an algorithm trained on data from one place be used elsewhere? We demonstrate that heterogeneity of error across space is a problem that could go undetected using common classification accuracy metrics. Second, we develop a method to assess the extent of heterogeneity of error in a random forest classification model for six Amazonian bird species. Finally, we propose two complementary ways to reduce heterogeneity of error, by (i) accounting for it in the thresholding process and (ii) using a secondary classifier that uses contextual data. We found that using a thresholding approach that accounted for heterogeneity of precision error reduced the coefficient of variation of the precision score from a mean of 0.61 ± 0.17 (SD) to 0.41 ± 0.25 in comparison to the initial classification with threshold selection based on F‐score. The use of a secondary, contextual classification with thresholding selection accounting for heterogeneity of precision reduced it further still, to 0.16 ± 0.13, and was significantly lower than the initial classification in all but one species. Mean average precision scores increased, from 0.66 ± 0.4 for the initial classification, to 0.95 ± 0.19, a significant improvement for all species. We recommend assessing—and if necessary correcting for—heterogeneity of precision error when using automated classification on acoustic data to quantify species presence as a function of an environmental, spatial or temporal predictor variable.

AB - Passive acoustic monitoring can be an effective method for monitoring species, allowing the assembly of large audio datasets, removing logistical constraints in data collection and reducing anthropogenic monitoring disturbances. However, the analysis of large acoustic datasets is challenging and fully automated machine learning processes are rarely developed or implemented in ecological field studies. One of the greatest uncertainties hindering the development of these methods is spatial generalisability—can an algorithm trained on data from one place be used elsewhere? We demonstrate that heterogeneity of error across space is a problem that could go undetected using common classification accuracy metrics. Second, we develop a method to assess the extent of heterogeneity of error in a random forest classification model for six Amazonian bird species. Finally, we propose two complementary ways to reduce heterogeneity of error, by (i) accounting for it in the thresholding process and (ii) using a secondary classifier that uses contextual data. We found that using a thresholding approach that accounted for heterogeneity of precision error reduced the coefficient of variation of the precision score from a mean of 0.61 ± 0.17 (SD) to 0.41 ± 0.25 in comparison to the initial classification with threshold selection based on F‐score. The use of a secondary, contextual classification with thresholding selection accounting for heterogeneity of precision reduced it further still, to 0.16 ± 0.13, and was significantly lower than the initial classification in all but one species. Mean average precision scores increased, from 0.66 ± 0.4 for the initial classification, to 0.95 ± 0.19, a significant improvement for all species. We recommend assessing—and if necessary correcting for—heterogeneity of precision error when using automated classification on acoustic data to quantify species presence as a function of an environmental, spatial or temporal predictor variable.

KW - Applied Ecology

KW - Behavioural ecology

KW - Biodiversity ecology

KW - Conservation ecology

KW - Global change ecology

KW - Movement ecology

KW - Population ecology

KW - RESEARCH ARTICLE

KW - RESEARCH ARTICLES

KW - automated signal recognition

KW - autonomous recording unit

KW - bioacoustics

KW - ecoacoustics

KW - machine‐learning

U2 - 10.1111/2041-210x.13967

DO - 10.1111/2041-210x.13967

M3 - Journal article

VL - 13

SP - 2559

EP - 2571

JO - Methods in Ecology and Evolution

JF - Methods in Ecology and Evolution

SN - 2041-210X

IS - 11

ER -