MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1590707944

A comparison of pitch extraction methodologies for dolphin vocalization

2008· article· en· W1590707944 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xanadu Halkias, Daniel P. W. Ellis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSpeech recognitionHidden Markov modelMel-frequency cepstrumAutocorrelationFundamental frequencyAcousticsHarmonicNoise (video)Range (aeronautics)BioacousticsArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Feature extractionMathematicsEngineeringPhysicsTelecommunications
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When collecting and analyzing marine mammal vocalizations one of the most important goals is to automatically extract the pitch/fundamental frequency of the collected calls.In dolphins we can assume that there are two main pitched sounds: whistles, which can be described as tonal AM-FM signals, and bursts, which can be described as highly harmonic signals.There are three main difficulties with pitch extraction on dolphin vocalizations that arise from the nature of the data.First, most underwater recordings are restricted to a low signal-to-noise ratio due to reflections, hardware noise and other interferences.This constitutes a big challenge for most existing pitch trackers.Second, one has to take into account the significant differences in the frequency range of bottlenose dolphin vocalizations compared to humans.Finally, dolphin whistles and bursts generally are emitted in two distinct frequency ranges, which result in different modes in the analysis data.In this work we compare our novel pitch extraction approach with two widely popular algorithms.Our approach uses hierarchy-based hidden Markov models (HMM) with cepstral coefficients as features.We quantitatively compare the performance of our algorithm with Yin, which is based on a modified autocorrelation method and get_f0, a popular off-the-shelf pitch tracker that utilizes linear predictive coefficients (LPC) and dynamic programming.Our approach outperforms the comparative methods by at least a factor of 10%. s o m m a i r ePour la collecte et l'analyse de vocalises de mamifres marins, l'extraction de la fondamentale est une tape cruciale.Dans le cas des dauphins, nous pouvons considrer qu'il y a deux types de sons voiss : les chants qui peuvent tre dcrits comme des tonalits AM-FM, et les rafales ("bursts") constitues de signaux hautement harmoniques.La premire des trois difficults pour extraire le timbre est le trs faible rapport signal sur bruit d aux reflections multiples et autres interfrences.La seconde consiste apprhender les rsolutions harmoniques sur le signal de ctacs par rapport aux traitements connus en parole par exemple.Dans ce papier, nous testons notre nouvelle mthode d'extraction de timbre sur un modle Chane de Markov Cache Hirarchique partir de coefficient cepstraux.Nous comparons nos rsultats la mthode YIN base sur un calcul d'autocorrlation, et get_f0 qui est extracteur de timbre classique par programmation dynamique utilisant des coefficients LPC.Nous montrons que notre mthode apporte un gain de 10% par rapport ces mthodes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.149
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian acousticsSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207