Pretrained audio embeddings are standard in bioacoustics, yet little is known about which acoustic features these models encode, nor which are useful for a given task. This hinders transparency and limits extension to rare species or data-scarce domains. Here we reveal which speech-like features are encoded in bioacoustic representations. Using the 88~eGeMAPS features across six taxonomic groups, we apply linear and nonlinear regression probes to quantify which acoustic properties each model captures. Results confirm a ``no free lunch'' pattern: no single model captures the full feature space. A concatenated embedding achieves the highest performance, suggesting complementary acoustic space coverage across models. Loudness features are best encoded (R2=0.76) while F0 is hardest to recover (R2=0.33). By cross-referencing recoverability with per-species feature salience (NMI), we derive data-driven model selection guidance for bioacoustics.
Do learned audio embeddings encode structure that nobody told them to encode? We probe four large pretrained audio models (AST, CLAP, BEATs-bio and BirdNET) with a downstream task none of them saw during training: recovering phylogenetic distance from species vocalizations. If the geometry of the embedding space tracks the tree of life, the representation is picking up something deeper than the labels the model was optimized for. We run Mantel tests across two independent radiations. In 32 marine mammal species (1,754 recordings from the Watkins Marine Mammal Sound Database) the foundation models recover strong phylogenetic signal within the 26 cetaceans (CLAP r=0.82, BEATs-bio r=0.82, AST r=0.74; all p<0.001), among the highest acoustic-phylogenetic correlations reported for any taxon. Hand-crafted MFCC features (105d) find nothing (r=0.040, p=0.338). The gap survives after PCA-projecting every embedding down to 105 dimensions, so it is not an artefact of representation size. It also survives a partial Mantel test controlling for dominant frequency (partial Mantel r=0.404, keeping 97% of the variance explained), so it is not just pitch in disguise. We repeat the analysis on 20 bird species using the Jetz et al. (2012) phylogeny, and this time add BirdNET, a classifier trained end-to-end on around 6,000 bird species. The general-purpose foundation models recover the signal again (AST r=0.55, CLAP r=0.52). The unexpected result is that neither BirdNET nor the bioacoustic BEATs-bio beat them (r around 0.32 to 0.36). Matching the training domain to the target taxon does not, by itself, help. Pretrained audio embeddings carry evolutionary information across two independent radiations, and domain-specific pretraining is not required for it to emerge.
Most work in audio enhancement targets human speech, while bioacoustics is less studied due to noisy recordings and the distinct traits of animal sounds. To fill this gap, we adapt speech enhancement methods and build BioSEN, a model made for bioacoustic signals. BioSEN has three modules: a multi-scale dual-axis attention unit for time-frequency feature extraction, a bio-harmonic multi-scale enhancement unit for capturing harmonic structures, and an energy-adaptive gating connection unit that uses frequency weights to keep vocalizations from being removed as noise. Tests on three bioacoustic datasets show that BioSEN matches or exceeds state-of-the-art speech enhancement models while using far less computation. These results show BioSEN's strength for bioacoustic audio enhancement and its promise for biodiversity monitoring and conservation.
Probing heads map the representations learned from audio by a machine learning model to downstream task labels and are a key component in evaluating representation learning. Most bioacoustic benchmarks use a fixed, low-capacity probe, such as a linear layer on the final encoder layer. While this standardization enables model comparisons, it may bias results by overlooking the interaction between encoder features and probe design. In this work, we systematically study different probing strategies across two bioacoustic benchmarks, BEANs and BirdSet. We evaluate last- and multi-layer probing, across linear and attention probes. We show that larger probe heads that leverage time information have superior performance. Our results suggest that current benchmarks may misrepresent encoder quality when relying on a last-layer probing setup. Multi-layer probing improves downstream task performance across all tested models, while attention probing has superior performance to linear probing for transformer models.