Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 14, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
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.