Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 63 references

First-of-its-kind AI model for bioacoustic detection using a lightweight associative memory Hopfield neural network

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A Hopfield associative memory network storing two Hebbian patterns, built from FFT peak frequencies of single echolocation pulses, identifies two cryptic pipistrelle bat species with up to 86% precision while training in 3 ms and…

desk verdict Plausible and efficient Hopfield-based classifier, but the evaluation's post-hoc exclusions and circular re-adjudication sink the headline accuracy claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10642 v1 pith:IXYROWT3 submitted 2025-07-14 cs.LG cs.AI

Andrew Gascoyne , Wendy Lomas This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI MSC 92B2068T07
keywords batecholocationbioacousticsHopfieldnetworkassociativememoryHebbianlearningexplainableAIpassiveacousticmonitoringedgeprocessing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that a lightweight, fully transparent Hopfield associative-memory network can perform real bioacoustic identification: trained on just two representative bat echolocation pulses (one per species), it classifies two cryptic pipistrelle species with up to 86% precision while training in 3 ms and pre-processing and classifying all 10,384 public recordings in 5.4 s on a standard laptop. The model converts each pulse with a fast Fourier transform, stores the peak-frequency firing patterns via Hebbian learning, and retrieves the closest stored pattern; when it converges to a reversed spurious state it outputs "UnID", flagging uncertain signals. The paper further argues that the gaps between model predictions and the dataset's labels are dataset labelling errors, verified by manual comparison with expert field guides, so the model and a human expert effectively agree. If those claims hold, accurate bioacoustic monitoring would no longer require large labelled training sets, spectrogram conversion, or GPU hardware.

What carries the argument

The Hopfield network with Hebbian learning, where the weight matrix is the sum of outer products of stored activation patterns, $W=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^{p} X_k X_k^\top$. Each species' representative echolocation pulse is converted by FFT into a binarized firing pattern, and the two patterns are stored as retrieval states. At inference, the FFT of a test pulse activates the network, which iterates until it converges to one of the two retrieval states, to a reversed state (labelled UnID), or to another spurious state. Two named mechanisms carry the argument: the Lyapunov energy function that guarantees convergence, and the spurious-state channel that the authors exploit as an explicit uncertainty class.

What would settle it

Have independent bat experts, blind to the model's outputs, re-label a random sample of the 3,677 removed files and the 838 files where Model 2 disagreed with the dataset; if a substantial fraction (say over 5%) are confidently identified as either PIPI or PIPY by at least two experts, the filtering-and-mislabelling premise fails and the reported 0.80 accuracy and 0.86 precision are inflated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a Hopfield associative memory network storing exactly two Hebbian patterns—one per species—can classify single bat echolocation pulses of two cryptic pipistrelle species using only the peak frequencies of a fast Fourier transform, with no spectrogram, no pretraining, and no GPU. On the dataset's filtered subset (Model 2) it reports 80% overall accuracy, 86% precision for Soprano pipistrelle, and the authors state they could not find a single case of disagreement between model output and manual identification using expert field guides. The paper also asserts that the many apparent misclassifications trace to labelling errors in the source dataset, not to model failure, and stresses that the network is designed to detect similar signals in memory rather than to classify species directly; species labels are inferred from the stored training signal that the network retrieves.

Load-bearing premise

The claim stands on the premise that the 3,677 recordings with peak frequency between 49 and 51 kHz are not genuine calls of either pipistrelle species, so filtering them out before scoring is legitimate and all remaining disagreements are dataset labelling errors confirmed by manual inspection, and if that premise fails the 0.80 accuracy and 0.86 precision are inflated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A bioacoustic classifier can be trained with one representative signal per target class, so new species and call types can be added almost instantly without retraining on large corpora.
  • The same all-in-one pipeline (FFT, Hebbian storage, iterative retrieval) runs on standard consumer laptops and is a plausible fit for edge-processing field devices, lowering hardware barriers to passive acoustic monitoring.
  • The network's spurious-state outcome gives every prediction a built-in "unidentified" channel, so out-of-distribution or ambiguous calls are surfaced for human review rather than silently forced into a class.
  • Because each classification reduces to convergence to a visible stored pattern, every prediction can be audited step by step, which matters for conservation decisions based on automated surveys.
  • If the dataset-label-error interpretation holds, then part of the accuracy gap commonly blamed on models may instead reflect noisy reference labels, and corrected labels would raise reported performance.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A decisive independent test would be a blind relabelling study: have bat experts, who do not know the model's outputs, classify the 3,677 excluded files and the 838 files where Model 2 disagreed with the dataset; the outcome directly separates model error from label error.
  • The two-pattern design sidesteps Hopfield capacity limits, but scaling to many species will reintroduce interference between stored patterns; a natural next test is adding a third or fourth species and measuring how precision degrades.
  • The authors' "no single disagreement" claim is stated without the full audit trail; publishing the per-file model verdicts alongside the manual field-guide notes would make that claim checkable and would also give the bioacoustics community a reusable error-analysis workflow.
  • If the approach generalizes beyond bats, the same 3 ms training and 5.4 s inference figures suggest that real-time monitoring networks with thousands of nodes could pre-filter acoustic data on-device, sending only the flagged "UnID" or matched events to a central server.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a lightweight associative-memory Hopfield neural network for classification of bat echolocation calls. The model is trained on a single representative FFT-based pattern per species (Pipistrellus pipistrellus and Pipistrellus pygmaeus) from the Bertran et al. (2019) dataset of split recordings. The authors report training in 3 ms, inference in 5.4 s on a laptop, and accuracy of 80% with 86% precision after curating the test set by removing 3,677 files with peak frequency between 49 and 51 kHz and by re-adjudicating disagreements with the dataset labels. Two model variants are presented: Model 1 on all 8,476 non-silence files after filtering, and Model 2 on the further curated subset of 4,799 files. The paper argues that the model is transparent, explainable, and competitive with CNN and commercial approaches.

Significance. The computational efficiency and conceptual simplicity of the proposed model are appealing; if the accuracy claims were supported, this would be a noteworthy contribution to low-resource bioacoustics. The use of spurious Hopfield states to signal 'unidentified' is a nice touch. However, the evaluation protocol conflates classifier performance with dataset curation: the headline metrics are computed on a subset from which ambiguous calls were removed post hoc, and the claim of 'no disagreement with expert field guides' arises from the authors' own re-labelling of dataset errors. As reported, the evidence for competitive accuracy is not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Table 1] The paper states that the dataset contains 4,916 PIPI and 5,064 PIPY fragments, totaling 9,980 labelled files, but Model 1 is evaluated on 8,476 files. This leaves 1,504 labelled fragments unaccounted for in the silence-filtering step. Either the silence filter also removed true echolocation pulses, or the dataset counts are reported incorrectly. This needs to be clarified because all subsequent metrics (including support counts) depend on this number.
  2. [Section 4, Model 2 definition] The exclusion of all 3,677 files with FmaxE between 49 and 51 kHz before scoring Model 2 removes 43% of the non-silence test set and increases overall accuracy from 0.72 to 0.80 and PIPY precision from 0.72 to 0.86. Since the classifier's decision is based on FFT peak frequencies, this band is exactly the region where the two species' call parameters overlap. Without a pre-specified criterion or an independent validation of the exclusion, Model 2's metrics do not reflect performance on the original task and are not directly comparable to other classifiers.
  3. [Section 5.1] The re-adjudication of the 838 Model-2 mislabelled predictions by the authors, using field guides, is circular: the same team defines both the model and the 'correct' labels, and then uses this to claim that there is no disagreement between model and manual identification. The abstract's statement 'we could not find a single case of disagreement' is therefore unsupported; it is based on a label set that the authors themselves curated after seeing the model's outputs, not on the original dataset labels. A blind, pre-registered comparison would be needed to support this claim.
  4. [Section 5.2] The comparison with prior work is not rigorous: Bertran et al. (2019) reported 74% accuracy on their own test split, but the present paper's Model 1 (72%) and Model 2 (80%) are evaluated on different, curated subsets; no confidence intervals or statistical significance tests are provided. The claim of 'competitive' accuracy is therefore not substantiated.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.2] There is a typo: 'assosiative' should be 'associative'.
  2. [Section 2] The species name 'Pipstrellus pygmaeus' should be spelled 'Pipistrellus pygmaeus'.
  3. [Section 6] The word 'signifcant' should be 'significant'.
  4. [Section 4] It would be helpful to include a flow diagram or table showing the exact number of files at each preprocessing stage (total files, after silence filtering, after FmaxE exclusion) to resolve the ambiguity about the 1,504 missing files.
  5. [Figure 4] The confusion matrices are mentioned but not clearly described in the text; please ensure the figure labels both Model 1 and Model 2 confusion matrices side by side for readability.
  6. [Reproducibility] No mention is made of code availability; providing the implementation would strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline 86% precision and 'no single case of disagreement' claims are produced by an evaluation loop that removes the ambiguous 49-51 kHz band and re-adjudicates model-dataset disagreements; the Hopfield mechanics themselves are self-contained.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.1 (Dataset Limitations); Abstract; Section 6 (Conclusion)]
    "In the top panels of figure 5 we would argue that our manual identification would agree with that of the model for the vast majority of signals and therefore disagree with the dataset labelling of these signals. ... We conclude that the overwhelming majority of the signals not detected correctly were either mislabelled in the original dataset or labelled despite expert consensus (Russ, 2021; Aughney et al., 2018; Catto et al., 2003)."

    The abstract and conclusion claim 'we could not find a single case of disagreement between model and manual identification via expert field guides' is established by the authors' own re-adjudication of exactly the cases where the model disagrees with the dataset. Section 5.1 inspects the four misclassified sets, declares the dataset labels wrong wherever the model disagrees, and treats UnID outputs as 'almost certainly not assigned correctly in the dataset.' The verification standard (manual identification) is applied selectively to confirm the model's outputs, and every counterexample is relabelled as a dataset error. The agreement claim therefore holds by construction: the evaluation loop redefines the ground truth as whatever agrees with the model.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4 (Model 2 definition), Table 1; Section 5.1]
    "Model 2 is tested on the dataset after silences have been filtered out and also files of echolocation pulses with FmaxE between 49 and 51 kHz removed (Russ, 2021; Aughney et al., 2018; Catto et al., 2003). ... We observe a marked decrease in the number of mislabelled PIPI signals predicted as PIPY by the model, from 1288 in model 1 to 322 in model 2."

    The headline metric 'up to 86% precision' is reported for Model 2, whose test set excludes files with FmaxE in 49-51 kHz (4,799 of 8,476 files). The model's activation patterns are built from FFT peak frequencies (Section 3.2), so FmaxE is the model's core decision variable, and the excluded interval is the region where the species' peak-frequency features overlap. Table 1 shows the filter mechanically raises overall accuracy from 0.72 to 0.80 and PIPY precision from 0.72 to 0.86 by deleting 3,677 files that concentrate the cross-species confusions (1288 to 322 errors). The band was chosen 'based on our insights about the dataset' (Section 4), so the curated test set is a fitted input; the reported precision is largely forced by the exclusion rather than an independent estimate.

full rationale

The classifier derivation itself is self-contained and not circular: Eq. 4 (Hebbian learning, W = (1/N) sum of Xk*Xk^T) stores two retrieval patterns built from FFT peak frequencies of hand-picked representative calls; Eqs. 1 and 2 define the convergence dynamics; and the class decision compares the converged state to the two stored states, with spurious states producing UnID. None of these steps assumes the target accuracy, and the speed (3 ms training, 5.4 s classification) and memory (144.09 MB) claims are direct measurements, not fitted outputs. There is no load-bearing self-citation: the single co-authored reference (Rodden et al., 2024) is background on chaotic Hopfield variants that this model does not use, so it does not raise the score. The circularity is confined to the evaluation and headline chain. Two steps reduce the claims to their own construction. First, the 'no single case of disagreement' claim is generated by relabelling, in Section 5.1, every model-dataset disagreement as a dataset error on the authors' own inspection, and by interpreting model abstentions (UnID) as unclassifiable dataset mistakes; the agreement claim is true by construction of that relabelling loop rather than by measurement against the original labels. Second, Model 2's 86% precision and 80% accuracy headline is computed on a test set from which the error-concentrated 49-51 kHz FmaxE band was deleted; Table 1 itself shows the mechanism (cross-species errors dropping from 1288 to 322), so the reported precision is a property of the curated subset rather than an independent benchmark. Supporting concerns, not circularity per se: the silence-filter flow removes 1,908 of 10,384 files although only 404 silence files were included, leaving 1,504 species-labelled fragments unaccounted for in the evaluation flow; and Section 6 concedes that 'the performance metrics do not tell the whole story.' Overall, the Hopfield classifier is a genuine engineering contribution, but the headline accuracy and agreement claims are partially circular, warranting a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on two hand-picked training templates, several unspecified signal-processing thresholds, a post-hoc frequency exclusion band, and the authors' own manual re-adjudication of dataset labels. The only external anchors are the field guides used for the band choice and the public dataset labels, which the paper partly overrides. This is a thin base for the headline accuracy and 'no disagreement' claims.

free parameters (5)
  • Representative training call per species = unspecified (hand-picked 'typical' calls)
    The entire classifier is built from these two templates; Section 3.2 says calls are selected that are 'typical' but gives no selection criteria, and no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Silence-filter tolerance = unspecified ('tunable tolerance')
    Section 4: determines which files pass to the model; it removed 404 silences plus 1,504 species-labelled files, changing the evaluation set from 9,980 to 8,476.
  • Model 2 exclusion band (FmaxE) = 49 to 51 kHz
    Section 4: post-hoc band applied before scoring; removing these 3,677 files raises overall accuracy from 0.72 to 0.80 and PIPY precision to 0.86.
  • Peak-selection rule for FFT binarization = unspecified
    Section 3.2: 'peak frequencies are selected' but the number of peaks, amplitude cutoff and mapping to neurons are not defined.
  • FFT window size and resolution = unspecified
    Section 3.2: determines the frequency resolution and hence the network size N, neither of which is reported.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Hopfield capacity and convergence results (about 0.15N patterns; convergence to energy minima)
    Section 3.1 invokes Hopfield 1982 and Hertz 1991 for storage capacity and Lyapunov convergence.
  • standard math Binary high-gain limit with symmetric weights, w_ij = w_ji and w_ii = 0, yields the stated energy function
    Section 3.1, Eq. (2); standard Hopfield-Tank 1985 result.
  • domain assumption Binarized FFT peak vectors of single echolocation pulses preserve enough species-discriminative information
    Section 3.2; the core modelling choice, never validated against alternative representations.
  • domain assumption Echolocation calls with FmaxE between 49 and 51 kHz are not assignable to PIPI or PIPY
    Section 4 and 5.1; cited to field guides (Russ 2021; Aughney et al. 2018; Catto et al. 2003), load-bearing for Model 2.
  • ad hoc to paper All spurious states reached by the trained network are reversed retrieval states
    Section 5.1; asserted without proof, needed for the UnID class to be interpretable.
  • domain assumption Dataset labels from Bertran et al. 2019 are ground truth except where the authors' manual re-inspection overrides them
    Section 5.1; the re-adjudication protocol is not systematically documented.
invented entities (1)
  • UnID third output class
    purpose: Labels recordings that converge to spurious Hopfield states, so the model expresses uncertainty instead of forcing a species choice
    Introduced by this paper as 'a third class not present in the original dataset' (Section 5.1). Its interpretation as purely reversed retrieval states rests on an unproved claim, and the UnID set (104-132 recordings) is never externally validated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First-of-its-kind AI model for bioacoustic detection using a lightweight associative memory Hopfield neural network." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IXYROWT3

@misc{pith2026250710642,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First-of-its-kind AI model for bioacoustic detection using a lightweight associative memory Hopfield neural network},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IXYROWT3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10642}
}
abstract

A growing issue within conservation bioacoustics is the task of analysing the vast amount of data generated from the use of passive acoustic monitoring devices. In this paper, we present an alternative AI model which has the potential to help alleviate this problem. Our model formulation addresses the key issues encountered when using current AI models for bioacoustic analysis, namely the: limited training data available; environmental impact, particularly in energy consumption and carbon footprint of training and implementing these models; and associated hardware requirements. The model developed in this work uses associative memory via a transparent, explainable Hopfield neural network to store signals and detect similar signals which can then be used to classify species. Training is rapid ($3$\,ms), as only one representative signal is required for each target sound within a dataset. The model is fast, taking only $5.4$\,s to pre-process and classify all $10384$ publicly available bat recordings, on a standard Apple MacBook Air. The model is also lightweight with a small memory footprint of $144.09$\,MB of RAM usage. Hence, the low computational demands make the model ideal for use on a variety of standard personal devices with potential for deployment in the field via edge-processing devices. It is also competitively accurate, with up to $86\%$ precision on the dataset used to evaluate the model. In fact, we could not find a single case of disagreement between model and manual identification via expert field guides. Although a dataset of bat echolocation calls was chosen to demo this first-of-its-kind AI model, trained on only two representative calls, the model is not species specific. In conclusion, we propose an equitable AI model that has the potential to be a game changer for fast, lightweight, sustainable, transparent, explainable and accurate bioacoustic analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10642 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Network diagram for the example discussed. Blue vertices [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) is applied to the signals (A) and (B) which are the echolocation calls for each species PIPI and PIPY [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) is applied to the input signal (A) which may or may not contain echolocation calls for either species PIPI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Confusion matrices for model 1 and 2. The confusion matrix, in figure 4, gives us a break￾down of the model prediction compared to the true label given in the dataset. Note here we have an extra pre￾diction label UnID, which the model returns when the neural network co…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Full power spectral density plots comparing the species PIPI ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: figure 3. This transparency and explainability was par [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in ":" * " " * FUNCTION f...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in ":" * " " * FUNCTION f...

  3. [3]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in ":" * " " * FUNCTION f...

  4. [4]

    , author Geary, M

    author Abrahams, C. , author Geary, M. , year 2020 . title Combining bioacoustics and occupancy modelling for improved monitoring of rare breeding bird populations . journal Ecological Indicators volume 112 . :10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106131

    work page arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    title Apodemus pippyg

    author Apodemus Field Equipment , year 2025 . title Apodemus pippyg . howpublished https://www.apodemus.eu/en/Apodemus-Pippyg/00127 . note Accessed: 2025-04-04

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    , author Roche, N

    author Aughney, T. , author Roche, N. , author Langton, S. , year 2018 . title The Irish Bat Monitoring Programme 2015-2017 . organization Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 103, National Parks and Wildlife Service . address Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Ireland

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    , year 2022

    author Bakker, K. , year 2022 . title The Sounds of Life: How Digital Technology is Bringing Us Closer to the Worlds of Animals and Plants . publisher Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    , author Jones, G

    author Barlow, K. , author Jones, G. , year 1999 . title Roosts, echolocation calls and wing morphology of two phonic types of pipistrellus pipistrellus . journal International Journal of Mammalian Biology volume 64 , pages 257--268

    work page 1999

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    , author Alsina-Pagès, R

    author Bertran, M. , author Alsina-Pagès, R. , author Tena, E. , year 2019 . title Pipistrellus pipistrellus and pipistrellus pygmaeus in the iberian peninsula: An annotated segmented dataset and a proof of concept of a classifier in a real environment . journal Applied Scienc...

    2019 doi

  2. [11]

    , author Bugeau, A

    author Bouza, L. , author Bugeau, A. , author Lannelongue, L. , year 2023 . title How to estimate carbon footprint when training deep learning models? a guide and review . journal Environmental Research Communications volume 5 , pages 115014 . https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2515-7...

    2023 doi

  3. [12]

    , author Desjonqueres, C

    author Bradfer-Lawrence, T. , author Desjonqueres, C. , author Eldridge, A. , author Johnston, A. , author Metcalf, O. , year 2023 . title Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation . journal Methods in Ecology and Evolution volume...

    2023 doi

  4. [13]

    , year 1997

    author Brownell, W. , year 1997 . title How the ear works - nature's solutions for listening . journal Volta Rev volume 99 (5) . :PMC2888317

    1997

  5. [14]

    , author Coyte, A

    author Catto, C. , author Coyte, A. , author Agate, J. , author Langton, S. , year 2003 . title Bats as Indicators of Environmental Quality R&D Technical Report E1-129/TR . type Technical Report number ISBN: 1 844 32251 3 . Environment Agency. address Rio House, Waterside Driv...

    2003

  6. [15]

    , author Li, O

    author Chen, C. , author Li, O. , author Tao, C. , author Barnett, A. , author Su, J. , author Rudin, C. , year 2019 . title This looks like that: Deep learning for interpretable image recognition . https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.10574, http://arxiv.org/abs/1806.10574 arXiv:1806.10574

    2019 arXiv

  7. [16]

    , author Aihara, K

    author Chen, L. , author Aihara, K. , year 1995 . title Chaotic simulated annealing by a neural network model with transient chaos . journal Neural Networks volume 8 , pages 915--930 . :10.1016/0893-6080(95)00033-V

    1995 doi

  8. [17]

    , author Nakano, Y

    author Dai, Y. , author Nakano, Y. , year 1998 . title Recognition of facial images with low resolution using a hopfield memory model . journal Pattern Recognition volume 31 (2) , pages 159--167 . :10.1016/S0031-3203(97)00040-X

    1998 doi

  9. [18]

    , author Van Hemel, S

    author Dobie, R. , author Van Hemel, S. , year 2004 . title Hearing Loss: Determining Eligibility for Social Security Benefits . publisher National Academies Press (US) . chapter chapter 2 . pp. pages 42--68 . :10.17226/11099

    2004 doi

  10. [19]

    , author Beyer, L

    author Dosovitskiy, A. , author Beyer, L. , author Kolesnikov, A. , author Weissenborn, D. , author Zhai, X. , author Unterthiner, T. , author Dehghani, M. , author Minderer, M. , author Heigold, G. , author Gelly, S. , author Uszkoreit, J. , author Houlsby, N. , year 2020 . t...

    2020 arXiv

  11. [20]

    , author Batist, C

    author Dufourq, E. , author Batist, C. , author Foquet, R. , author Durbach, I. , year 2022 . title Passive acoustic monitoring of animal populations with transfer learning . journal Ecological Informatics volume 70 , pages 101688 . :10.1016/j.ecoinf.2022.101688

    2022

  12. [21]

    , author Felipe da Silva , N

    author Ferreira, A. , author Felipe da Silva , N. , author Mesquita, F. , author Rosa, T. , author Buchmann, S. , author Mesquita-Neto, J. , year 2025 . title Transformer models improve the acoustic recognition of buzz-pollinating bee species . journal Ecological Informatics v...

    2025

  13. [22]

    , author Barbaro, L

    author Funosas, D. , author Barbaro, L. , author Schillé, L. , author Elger, A. , author Castagneyrol, B. , author Cauchoix, M. , year 2024 . title Assessing the potential of birdnet to infer european bird communities from large-scale ecoacoustic data . journal Ecological Indi...

    2024

  14. [23]

    , author Denton, T

    author Ghani, B. , author Denton, T. , author Kahl, S. , author Klinck, H. , year 2023 . title Global birdsong embeddings enable superior transfer learning for bioacoustic classification . journal Scientific Reports volume 13 , pages 22876 . :10.1038/s41598-023-49989-z

    2023 doi

  15. [24]

    , author Gillam, E

    author Goodwin, K. , author Gillam, E. , year 2021 . title Testing accuracy and agreement among multiple versions of automated bat call classification software . journal Wildlife Society Bulletin volume 45 , pages 690--705 . :10.1002/wsb.1235

    2021 doi

  16. [25]

    , year 1949

    author Hebb, D. , year 1949 . title The Organization of Behavior: A Neuropsychological Theory, 1st ed. publisher Wiley

    1949

  17. [26]

    , author Rauch, L

    author Heinrich, R. , author Rauch, L. , author Sick, B. , author Scholz, C. , year 2025 . title Audioprotopnet: An interpretable deep learning model for bird sound classification . journal Ecological Informatics volume 87 , pages 103081 . :10.1016/j.ecoinf.2025.103081

    2025

  18. [27]

    , year 1991

    author Hertz, J. , year 1991 . title Introduction To The Theory Of Neural Computation (1st ed.) . publisher CRC Press . :10.1201/9780429499661

    1991 doi

  19. [28]

    , author Prince, P

    author Hill, A. , author Prince, P. , author Snaddon, J. , author Doncaster, C. , author Rogers, A. , year 2019 . title Audiomoth: A low-cost acoustic device for monitoring biodiversity and the environment . journal HardwareX volume 6 , pages e00073 . :10.1016/j.ohx.2019.e00073

    2019 doi

  20. [29]

    , year 1982

    author Hopfield, J. , year 1982 . title Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities . journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA volume 79 , pages 2554--2558 . :10.1073/pnas.79.8.2554

    1982 doi

  21. [30]

    , year 1984

    author Hopfield, J. , year 1984 . title Neurons with graded response have collective computational properties like those of two-state neurons . journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America volume 81 (10) , pages 3088--3092 . :10.1073/...

    1984 doi

  22. [31]

    , author Tank, D

    author Hopfield, J. , author Tank, D. , year 1985 . title "neural" computation of decisions in optimization problems . journal Biological cybernetics volume 52 , pages 141--152 . :10.1007/BF00339943

    1985 doi

  23. [32]

    , author Wood, C

    author Kahl, S. , author Wood, C. , author Eibl, M. , author Klinck, H. , year 2021 . title Birdnet: A deep learning solution for avian diversity monitoring . journal Ecological Informatics volume 61 , pages 101236 . :10.1016/j.ecoinf.2021.101236

    2021

  24. [33]

    , author Akçay, C

    author Kershenbaum, A. , author Akçay, C . , author Babu-Saheer, L. , author Barnhill, A. , author Best, P. , author Cauzinille, J. , author Clink, D. , author Dassow, A. , author Dufourq, E. , author Growcott, J. , author Markham, A. , author Marti-Domken, B. , author Marxer,...

    2025

  25. [34]

    , author Gao, X

    author Liu, S. , author Gao, X. , author Chen, L. , author Zhou, S. , author Peng, Y. , author Yu, D. , author Ma, X. , author Wang, Y. , year 2023 . title Multi-traveler salesman problem for unmanned vehicles: Optimization through improved hopfield neural network . journal Su...

    2023 doi

  26. [35]

    , author Mao, H

    author Liu, Z. , author Mao, H. , author Wu, C. , author Feichtenhofer, C. , author Darrell, T. , author Xie, S. , year 2022 . title A convnet for the 2020s . https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.03545, http://arxiv.org/abs/2201.03545 arXiv:2201.03545

    2022 arXiv

  27. [36]

    , author Gibb, R

    author Mac Aodha, O. , author Gibb, R. , author Barlow, K. , author Browning, E. , author Firman, M. , author Freeman et al, R. , year 2018 . title Bat detective—deep learning tools for bat acoustic signal detection . journal PLOS Computational Biology volume 14 (3) , pages e1...

    2018 doi

  28. [37]

    , author Newson, S

    author MacIsaac, J. , author Newson, S. , author Ashton-Butt, A. , author Pearce, H. , author Milner, B. , year 2024 . title Improving acoustic species identification using data augmentation within a deep learning framework . journal Ecological Informatics volume 83 , pages 10...

    2024

  29. [38]

    , author Bota, G

    author Manzano-Rubio, R. , author Bota, G. , author Brotons, L. , author Soto-Largo, E. , author Pérez-Granados, C. , year 2022 . title Low-cost open-source recorders and ready-to-use machine learning approaches provide effective monitoring of threatened species . journal Ecol...

    2022

  30. [39]

    , author Fabianek, F

    author Marchal, J. , author Fabianek, F. , author Aubry, Y. , year 2022 . title Software performance for the automated identification of bird vocalisations: the case of two closely related species . journal Bioacoustics volume 31 (4) , pages 397--413 . :10.1080/09524622.2021.1945952

    2022

  31. [40]

    , author Soltero, K

    author McEwen, B. , author Soltero, K. , author Gutschmidt, S. , author Bainbridge-Smith, A. , author Atlas, J. , author Green, R. , year 2024 . title Active few-shot learning for rare bioacoustic feature annotation . journal Ecological Informatics volume 82 , pages 102734 . :...

    2024

  32. [41]

    , author Abrahams, C

    author Metcalf, O. , author Abrahams, C. , author Ashington, B. , author Baker, E. , author Bradfer-Lawrence, T. , author Browning, E. , author Carruthers-Jones, J. , author Darby, J. , author Dick, J. , author Eldridge, A. , author Elliott, D. , author Heath, B. , author Howd...

    2023

  33. [42]

    , author Salamon, J

    author Mydlarz, C. , author Salamon, J. , author Bello, J. , year 2017 . title The implementation of low-cost urban acoustic monitoring devices . journal Applied Acoustics volume 117 , pages 207--218 . :10.1016/j.apacoust.2016.06.010. note acoustics in Smart Cities

    2017 doi

  34. [43]

    title The nobel prize in physics 2024

    author NobelPrize.org , year 2024 . title The nobel prize in physics 2024 . howpublished https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2024/11/press-physicsprize2024-2.pdf . note Accessed: 2025-04-04

    2024

  35. [44]

    , author Athalye, A

    author Northcutt, C. , author Athalye, A. , author Mueller, J. , year 2021 . title Pervasive label errors in test sets destabilize machine learning benchmarks . https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.14749, http://arxiv.org/abs/2103.14749 arXiv:2103.14749

    2021 arXiv

  36. [45]

    , author Griffin, D

    author Pierce, G. , author Griffin, D. , year 1938 . title Experimental determination of supersonic notes emitted by bats . journal Journal of Mammalogy volume 19 (4) , pages 454--455 . :10.2307/1374231

    1938 doi

  37. [46]

    , year 2024

    author Planque, B. , year 2024 . title A short introduction to machine learning results . howpublished https://xeno-canto.org/article/299 . note Accessed: 2025-04-04

    2024

  38. [47]

    , year 2023

    author Pérez-Granados, C. , year 2023 . title Birdnet: applications, performance, pitfalls and future opportunities . journal Ibis volume 165 , pages 1068--1075 . :10.1111/ibi.13193

    2023 doi

  39. [48]

    , author Traba, J

    author Pérez-Granados, C. , author Traba, J. , year 2021 . title Estimating bird density using passive acoustic monitoring: a review of methods and suggestions for further research . journal Ibis volume 163 , pages 765--783 . :10.1111/ibi.12944

    2021 doi

  40. [49]

    , author Stowell, D

    author Rasmussen, J. , author Stowell, D. , author Briefer, E. , year 2024 . title Sound evidence for biodiversity monitoring . journal Science volume 385 , pages 138--140 . :10.1126/science.adh2716

    2024 doi

  41. [50]

    , author Gascoyne, A

    author Rodden, E. , author Gascoyne, A. , author Naughton, L. , author Brennan, J. , author Parkes, A. , year 2024 . title Transient chaotic neural network with negative self-feedback memory for continuous optimisation problems , in: editor Arai, K. (Ed.), booktitle Proceeding...

    2024

  42. [51]

    , year 2021

    author Russ, J. , year 2021 . title Bat calls of Britain and Europe . Bat Biology and Conservation, publisher Pelagic Publishing , address Exeter, England

    2021

  43. [52]

    , author Shirayama, S

    author Salem, S. , author Shirayama, S. , author Shimazaki, S. , author Oki, K. , year 2024 . title Ensemble deep learning and anomaly detection framework for automatic audio classification: Insights into deer vocalizations . journal Ecological Informatics volume 84 , pages 10...

    2024

  44. [53]

    , year 2025

    author Sandbrook, C. , year 2025 . title Beyond the hype: Navigating the conservation implications of artificial intelligence . journal Conservation Letters volume 18 , pages e13076 . :10.1111/conl.13076

    2025 doi

  45. [54]

    , author Kovac, M

    author Sethi, S. , author Kovac, M. , author Wiesemüller, F. , author Miriyev, A. , author Boutry, C. , year 2022 . title Biodegradable sensors are ready to transform autonomous ecological monitoring . journal Nature Ecology and Evolution volume 6 , pages 1245--1247 . :10.1038...

    2022 doi

  46. [55]

    , year 2022

    author Stowell, D. , year 2022 . title Computational bioacoustics with deep learning: a review and roadmap. journal PeerJ volume 10 , pages e13152 . :10.7717/peerj.13152

    2022 doi

  47. [56]

    , author McCullough, L.K

    author Szesciorka, A. , author McCullough, L.K. , author Oleson, E. , year 2023 . title An unknown nocturnal call type in the mariana archipelago . journal JASA Express Lett volume 3 (1) , pages 011201 . :10.1121/10.0017068

    2023 doi

  48. [57]

    , author Murray, K

    author Tabak, M. , author Murray, K. , author Reed, A. , author Lombardi, J. , author Bay, K. , year 2022 . title Automated classification of bat echolocation call recordings with artificial intelligence . journal Ecological Informatics volume 68 , pages 101526 . :10.1016/j.ec...

    2022

  49. [58]

    , author Maron, M

    author Teixeira, D. , author Maron, M. , author van Rensburg, B. , year 2019 . title Bioacoustic monitoring of animal vocal behavior for conservation . journal Conservation Science and Practice volume 1 (8) . :10.1111/csp2.72

    2019 doi

  50. [59]

    , author Greenewald, K

    author Thompson, N.C. , author Greenewald, K. , author Lee, K. , author Manso, G.F. , year 2021 . title Deep learning's diminishing returns: The cost of improvement is becoming unsustainable . journal IEEE Spectrum volume 58 , pages 50--55 . :10.1109/MSPEC.2021.9563954

    2021

  51. [60]

    , year 2020

    author Toews, R. , year 2020 . title Deep learning’s carbon emissions problem . howpublished https://www.forbes.com/sites/robtoews/2020/06/17/deep-learnings-climate-change-problem/ . note Accessed: 2025-04-04

    2020

  52. [61]

    title Kaleidoscope pro bat auto id how it works

    author Wildlife Acoustics , year 2017 . title Kaleidoscope pro bat auto id how it works . howpublished https://vimeo.com/182997396 . note Accessed: 2025-04-04

    2017

  53. [62]

    title Products

    author Wildlife Acoustics , year 2024 . title Products . howpublished https://www.wildlifeacoustics.com/products . note Accessed: 2025-04-04

    2024

  54. [63]

    , author Kingston, T

    author Yoh, N. , author Kingston, T. , author McArthur, E. , author Aylen, O. , author Huang, J. , author Jinggong, E. , author Khan, F. , author Lee, B. , author Mitchell, S. , author Bicknell, J. , author Struebig, M. , year 2022 . title A machine learning framework to class...

    2022

  55. [64]

    , author Zhang, Z

    author You, Y. , author Zhang, Z. , author Hsieh, C.J. , author Demmel, J. , author Keutzer, K. , year 2018 . title Imagenet training in minutes . https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.05011, http://arxiv.org/abs/1709.05011 arXiv:1709.05011

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.