REVIEW 1 cited by
Evaluating the method reproducibility of deep learning models in the biodiversity domain
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing biodiversity research by enabling advanced data analysis, species identification, and habitats monitoring, thereby enhancing conservation efforts. Ensuring reproducibility in AI-driven biodiversity research is crucial for fostering transparency, verifying results, and promoting the credibility of ecological findings.This study investigates the reproducibility of deep learning (DL) methods within the biodiversity domain. We design a methodology for evaluating the reproducibility of biodiversity-related publications that employ DL techniques across three stages. We define ten variables essential for method reproducibility, divided into four categories: resource requirements, methodological information, uncontrolled randomness, and statistical considerations. These categories subsequently serve as the basis for defining different levels of reproducibility. We manually extract the availability of these variables from a curated dataset comprising 61 publications identified using the keywords provided by biodiversity experts. Our study shows that the dataset is shared in 47% of the publications; however, a significant number of the publications lack comprehensive information on deep learning methods, including details regarding randomness.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Harnessing multiple LLMs for Information Retrieval: A case study on Deep Learning methodologies in Biodiversity publications
An ensemble of five RAG-assisted LLMs identifies the presence of deep-learning methodology details in biodiversity papers, agreeing with human annotations on 417 of 600 comparisons.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.