BioDCASE 2026 Challenge Baseline for Cross-Domain Mosquito Species Classification
Authors: Yuanbo Hou, Vanja Zdravkovic, Marianne Sinka, Yunpeng Li, Wenwu Wang, Mark D. Plumbley, Kathy Willis, Stephen Roberts
Organizations: Machine Learning Research Group, University of Oxford · Oxford Long-Term Ecology Laboratory, University of Oxford · King’s College London · Centre for Vision, Speech and Signal Processing, University of Surrey
Mosquito-borne diseases affect more than one billion people each year and cause close to one million deaths. Traditional surveillance methods rely on traps and manual identification that are slow, labor-intensive, and difficult to scale. Audio-based mosquito monitoring offers a non-destructive, lower-cost, and more scalable complement to trap-based surveillance, but reliable species classification remains difficult under real-world recording conditions. Mosquito flight tones are narrow-band, often low in signal-to-noise ratio, and easily masked by background noise, and recordings for several epidemiologically relevant species remain limited, creating pronounced class imbalance. Variation across devices, environments, and collection protocols further increases the difficulty of robust classification. Such variation can cause models to rely on domain-specific recording artefacts rather than species-relevant acoustic cues, which makes transfer to new acquisition settings difficult. The BioDCASE 2026 Cross-Domain Mosquito Species Classification (CD-MSC) challenge is designed around this deployment problem by evaluating performance on both seen and unseen domains. This paper presents the official baseline system and evaluation pipeline as a simple, fully reproducible reference for the CD-MSC challenge task. The baseline uses log-mel features and a multitemporal resolution convolutional neural network (MTRCNN) with species and auxiliary domain outputs, together with complete training and test scripts. The baseline system performs strongly on seen domains but degrades markedly on unseen domains, showing that cross-domain generalisation, rather than within-domain recognition, is the central challenge for practical mosquito species classification from multi-source bioacoustic recordings.
Figures & tables
Dataset
Ae.aeg
Ae.alb
Cx.qui
An.gam
An.ara
An.dir
Cx.pip
An.min
An.ste
Total
D1
123
79
672
818
1820
87
66
200
200
4065
D2
0
419
0
0
0
0
66
99
200
784
D3
192
19
0
0
0
0
68
200
200
679
D4
22
0
13
0
0
40
0
51
74
200
D5
81250
18000
71371
46180
19297
0
29554
0
0
265652
Total
81587
18517
72056
46998
21117
127
29754
550
674
271380
TABLE I: Number of clips in the full development dataset. Rows correspond to domains and columns correspond to species.
Dataset
Ae.aeg
Ae.alb
Cx.qui
An.gam
An.ara
An.dir
Cx.pip
An.min
An.ste
Total
D1
1332.65
42.32
7418.64
2978.16
18322.92
748.09
132.66
424.85
381.63
31781.92
D2
0.00
1280.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
132.66
198.99
402.00
2014.23
D3
5909.57
580.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
136.68
402.00
402.00
7430.71
D4
1737.07
0.00
758.19
0.00
0.00
1775.24
0.00
2944.18
2586.10
9800.78
D5
51187.50
11340.00
44963.73
29093.40
12157.11
0.00
18619.02
0.00
0.00
167360.76
Total
60166.79
13243.36
53140.56
32071.56
30480.03
2523.33
19021.02
3970.02
3771.73
218388.40
TABLE II: Total duration in seconds in the full development dataset. Rows correspond to domains and columns correspond to species.
Dataset
Ae.aeg
Ae.alb
Cx.qui
An.gam
An.ara
An.dir
Cx.pip
An.min
An.ste
Total
D1
111
73
0
0
0
87
59
200
200
730
D2
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
200
260
D3
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
200
200
417
D4
20
0
12
0
0
0
0
51
0
83
D5
73297
16575
64838
42298
19005
0
26660
0
0
242673
TABLE III: Species-domain distribution of the trainval pool set.
Dataset
Ae.aeg
Ae.alb
Cx.qui
An.gam
An.ara
An.dir
Cx.pip
An.min
An.ste
Total
D1
12
6
672
818
1820
0
7
0
0
3335
D2
0
419
0
0
0
0
6
99
0
524
D3
192
2
0
0
0
0
68
0
0
262
D4
2
0
1
0
0
40
0
0
74
117
D5
7953
1425
6533
3882
292
0
2894
0
0
22979
TABLE IV: Species-domain distribution of the test set.
Checkpoint
BAseen
BAunseen
DSG
Best-validation
0.8806±0.0108
0.1751±0.0197
0.7055±0.0248
Final
0.8822±0.0097
0.1704±0.0180
0.7118±0.0235
TABLE V: Performance of the baseline checkpoints on seen-domain and unseen-domain samples from the test set of the development dataset, reported over 10 runs.
Fig. 1: Per-species balanced accuracy of the best-validation checkpoint on the test set of the development dataset. For each species, BAseen and BAunseen are shown, with error bars indicating standard deviation over 10 runs.
Fig. 2: Domain-level species balanced accuracy of the best-validation checkpoint on the test set of the development dataset, over 10 runs.
Checkpoint
Metric
Validation
Test
Best-validation
Species accuracy
0.9056±0.0076
0.7827±0.0068
Species balanced accuracy
0.8522±0.0108
0.5411±0.0140
Final
Species accuracy
0.9096±0.0052
0.7874±0.0034
Species balanced accuracy
0.8383±0.0176
0.5380±0.0152
TABLE VI: Overall performance of the baseline checkpoints on the validation set and the test set of the development dataset, reported over 10 runs.
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands · Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA · Tampere University, Finland +2