Targeted Review for AI-Assisted Biodiversity Surveys: Active Continuous-Score Occupancy Modeling

Active learning is now standard practice in labeling ecological data, enabling ecologists to quickly process large volumes of field data to understand and monitor natural environments. Current practices evaluate active learning inductively, estimating predictive performance on a held-out test set. We argue that this evaluation is misaligned with most ecological tasks, where the goal is to transductively label an entire pool of data as efficiently as possible. We demonstrate that ignoring the human-in-the-loop underestimates the importance of continuing to label, particularly for classes in the long tail which may be of disproportionate ecological importance (rare species, uncommon behaviors, etc.). Our analysis shows that, for this long tail, the transductive objective shifts importance from prediction to discovery: the true challenge becomes finding "needles in the haystack," examples of rare classes that are embedded within dense regions of abundant classes in the latent geometry, which we quantify with a novel metric of sampling difficulty. Finally, to translate these insights to practical ecological workflows, we propose a conservative hybrid stopping criterion inspired by ecological rarefaction curves, and show that combining predictive performance with discovery criteria reduces premature stopping on long-tailed pools, improving rare-class recovery when discovery, not classification, is the limiting factor.

Artificial intelligence is transforming biodiversity monitoring by enabling automated analysis of ecological imagery collected from camera traps, drones, satellites, underwater platforms, and other sensing systems. These tools can expand the scale and speed of conservation assessments, yet many computer vision models remain difficult to inspect, making it challenging to determine whether predictions are based on ecologically meaningful signals or on spurious correlations, sampling biases, and other artifacts that may undermine conservation decisions. We argue that explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) should become a standard component of ecological model validation because conservation practitioners increasingly depend on understanding not only whether a model is accurate, but why it is accurate. We provide practical guidance for applying XAI to three common ecological computer vision tasks: image classification, object detection, and image segmentation. To illustrate how XAI can support ecological model auditing, refinement, and deployment, we present two case studies using aerial imagery: harbor seal detection and cetacean anatomical segmentation. These examples demonstrate how explanation methods can identify biologically meaningful cues, reveal false positives driven by background and shape confounds, uncover edge and occlusion effects, and guide data collection, augmentation, and retraining strategies. More broadly, they show how explainability can help assess whether model reasoning aligns with ecological understanding. We conclude by identifying key challenges and opportunities. By making model behavior more transparent and scientifically interrogable, XAI can help ensure that AI-supported ecological evidence is more reliable, understandable, and actionable for biodiversity conservation.

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.