Next Article in Journal
Performance of InGaN/GaN Light Emitting Diodes with n-GaN Layer Embedded with SiO2 Nano-Particles
Previous Article in Journal
The Construction of an Engineered Bacterial Strain and Its Application in Accumulating Mercury from Wastewater
Article Menu
Issue 9 (September) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8(9), 1573; https://doi.org/10.3390/app8091573

Toward Audio Beehive Monitoring: Deep Learning vs. Standard Machine Learning in Classifying Beehive Audio Samples

Department of Computer Science, Utah State University, 4205 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322-4205, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 31 May 2018 / Revised: 29 August 2018 / Accepted: 30 August 2018 / Published: 6 September 2018
(This article belongs to the Section Computer Science and Electrical Engineering)
Full-Text   |   PDF [2617 KB, uploaded 6 September 2018]   |  

Abstract

Electronic beehive monitoring extracts critical information on colony behavior and phenology without invasive beehive inspections and transportation costs. As an integral component of electronic beehive monitoring, audio beehive monitoring has the potential to automate the identification of various stressors for honeybee colonies from beehive audio samples. In this investigation, we designed several convolutional neural networks and compared their performance with four standard machine learning methods (logistic regression, k-nearest neighbors, support vector machines, and random forests) in classifying audio samples from microphones deployed above landing pads of Langstroth beehives. On a dataset of 10,260 audio samples where the training and testing samples were separated from the validation samples by beehive and location, a shallower raw audio convolutional neural network with a custom layer outperformed three deeper raw audio convolutional neural networks without custom layers and performed on par with the four machine learning methods trained to classify feature vectors extracted from raw audio samples. On a more challenging dataset of 12,914 audio samples where the training and testing samples were separated from the validation samples by beehive, location, time, and bee race, all raw audio convolutional neural networks performed better than the four machine learning methods and a convolutional neural network trained to classify spectrogram images of audio samples. A trained raw audio convolutional neural network was successfully tested in situ on a low voltage Raspberry Pi computer, which indicates that convolutional neural networks can be added to a repertoire of in situ audio classification algorithms for electronic beehive monitoring. The main trade-off between deep learning and standard machine learning is between feature engineering and training time: while the convolutional neural networks required no feature engineering and generalized better on the second, more challenging dataset, they took considerably more time to train than the machine learning methods. To ensure the replicability of our findings and to provide performance benchmarks for interested research and citizen science communities, we have made public our source code and our curated datasets. View Full-Text
Keywords: deep learning; machine learning; convolutional neural networks; audio classification; audio processing; electronic beehive monitoring; bioacoustics; ecoacoustics deep learning; machine learning; convolutional neural networks; audio classification; audio processing; electronic beehive monitoring; bioacoustics; ecoacoustics
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Supplementary material

SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Kulyukin, V.; Mukherjee, S.; Amlathe, P. Toward Audio Beehive Monitoring: Deep Learning vs. Standard Machine Learning in Classifying Beehive Audio Samples. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1573.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Appl. Sci. EISSN 2076-3417 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top