MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1619898710 · doi:10.1109/icassp.1995.479410

Reconstruction of missing packets for CELP-based speech coders

2002· article· en· W1619898710 on OpenAlexaff
Aamir Husain, V. Cuperman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Data Compression Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCode-excited linear predictionComputer scienceSpeech recognitionSpeech codingLinear predictive codingNetwork packetVoice activity detectionCodec2ErasureSpeech processingComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A common aspect of speech transmission through packetised networks is the need to consider the discarded (missing) packets as a result of error detection or network overload. The missing packets and the possible mistracking that results in the speech decoder lead to significant quality degradation. We introduce a packet recovery technique for CELP based speech coders. The proposed technique extrapolates independently the excitation signal and the short-term synthesis filter. A recovery strategy based on speech classification (voiced, unvoiced, transition, silence) is discussed. The extrapolation of the short-term filter uses a least-squares fading memory polynomial filter applied to the reflection coefficients. Objective and subjective quality evaluations of the recovery system applied to the LD-CELP G.728 standard and a variable rate CELP system for random and burst frame erasures are presented. The results indicate that the system is robust up to a frame erasure rate of 10%. Very little degradation in quality was observed at erasure rates up to 3%.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Data Compression TechniquesFrench-language works237,207