Skip to main content
Recording session leakage inflates accuracy in marine mammal call classification

Recording session leakage inflates accuracy in marine mammal call classification

This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 1 of this Preprint.

Add a Comment

You must log in to post a comment.


Comments

There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.

Downloads

Download Preprint

Supplementary Files

Authors

Erzsebet Frey 

Abstract

Splitting clips at random overstated the accuracy of a marine mammal call classifier by up to 23 percentage points, because clips from the same recording tape landed in both training and test data. I classified 4,761 recordings of nine Arctic and subarctic marine mammal species from the Watkins Marine Mammal Sound Database, recorded on 148 tapes between 1949 and 1997, at two levels: species and taxonomic group (baleen whales, toothed whales, pinnipeds). A random forest on 90 acoustic features, a small transformer trained from scratch on log mel spectrograms and linear classifiers on embeddings from the pretrained BirdNET and Perch 2.0 models were evaluated with 5 fold cross validation grouped by tape, and the random forest and both embedding classifiers were also scored with random splits.

With random splits the random forest reached 97% accuracy for both tasks. With whole tapes held out, species accuracy fell to 74% (balanced accuracy 49%, against 89% with random splits), while group accuracy fell to 91% (balanced accuracy 71%). The loss was concentrated in species recorded on few tapes: F1 for narwhal fell from 0.91 to 0.02 and for ringed seal from 0.73 to 0.00, with most of their clips predicted as killer whale. The transformer matched the random forest on balanced accuracy for groups (71%) but trailed it for species (42%). Embeddings from the pretrained BirdNET and Perch 2.0 models did best on unseen tapes (species balanced accuracy 66% and 69%) but were still inflated by 28 and 26 points under random splits. Unsupervised clustering recovered neither species nor groups.

Random splits of clip level bioacoustic data therefore measure partly how well a model recognises recording conditions, not animals, even when the model is pretrained. I recommend grouping cross validation folds by recording session, reporting balanced accuracy and per class scores, and reporting the random split score alongside as a measure of leakage.

DOI

https://doi.org/10.32942/X2P68X

Subjects

Computational Biology, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Life Sciences, Marine Biology, Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology, Zoology

Keywords

bioacoustics, passive acoustic monitoring, data leakage, cross validation, marine mammals, Arctic, BirdNET, Perch, transfer learning, random forest, transformer, Watkins Marine Mammal Sound Database

Dates

Published: 2026-11-13 19:40

Last Updated: 2026-11-13 19:40

License

CC BY Attribution 4.0 International

Additional Metadata

Conflict of interest statement:
None.

Data and Code Availability Statement:
Data and code are openly available. The recordings are from the Watkins Marine Mammal Sound Database (Internet Archive mirror: https://archive.org/details/watkins-marine-mammal-sound-database-full-cuts). The clip list, download, feature extraction, pretrained embedding, analysis and figure code, all results and figures are archived on Zenodo, version 1.2.0: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.24158120 (all versions: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22859088), and on GitHub: https://github.com/elifrey/marine-mammal-acoustics-ml. Code is under the MIT licence and derived results under CC BY 4.0.

Language:
English

Metrics

Views: 29

Downloads: 1