Back

Beyond Accuracy: Reliability-Aware Cross-Farm Evaluation of Dairy Cow Vocalization Models

Kate, M.; Neethirajan, S.

2026-06-22 animal behavior and cognition
10.64898/2026.06.17.732832 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Automated analysis of dairy cow vocalizations has largely relied on supervised classifiers evaluated within a single farm, a setting that inflates apparent performance and gives no measure of how far predictions can be trusted. We address this with a three-layer framework that separates acoustic structure discovery, proxy-state inference, and reliability assessment, evaluated on 569 annotated clips from three commercial dairy farms. A frozen self-supervised speech encoder, latent-space segmentation, and stability-guided clustering convert continuous recordings into discrete acoustic units without behavioral labels. Proxy-state signal is then tested under audio-only, audio-plus-context, and leave-one-farm-out (LOFO) protocols designed to separate transferable acoustic structure from farm-specific shortcuts. The results suggest that cross-farm generalizability differs substantially across biologically distinct vocalization categories. Non-vocal physiological sounds transfer across farms (LOFO macro-F1 = 0.763) and calibrate well (expected calibration error reduced from 0.087 to 0.023), whereas resource-related calls collapse to a majority-class baseline (macro-F1 = 0.500) and distress-related calls degrade under farm holdout. Selective prediction improves the retained-set score of the multiclass functional proxy (0.407 to 0.430), and an end-to-end convolutional baseline matches or exceeds the framework on raw accuracy for the easier targets yet yields a roughly two- to six-fold larger calibration error and offers no abstention. Random cross-validation consistently overstates cross-farm utility. These findings show that acoustic models for livestock monitoring require reliability-aware evaluation rather than flat classification.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 2%
15.5%
2
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 12%
15.5%
3
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 2%
13.4%
4
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
176 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
5.6%
5
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 32%
4.1%
50% of probability mass above
6
Behavior Research Methods
30 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.9%
7
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 38%
2.7%
8
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 14%
2.5%
9
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
235 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
10
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
11
Ecological Informatics
33 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.2%
12
Nature Machine Intelligence
70 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.2%
13
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 23%
2.2%
14
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 12%
2.0%
15
Animals
23 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
16
PLOS Biology
486 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.2%
17
Journal of Neural Engineering
221 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
18
Scientific Data
209 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
19
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
35 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
20
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
72 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.2%
21
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 24%
1.2%
22
Movement Ecology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
23
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
96 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
24
Primates
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
25
Genome Research
468 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%
26
PNAS Nexus
159 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%