MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1813353062 · doi:10.1109/scft.1999.781477

LPC quantization requirements for the GPP-CELP coder

2003· article· en· W1813353062 on OpenAlexaff
P. Mermelstein, Yasheng Qian, K. Zarrinkoub

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Data Compression Techniques
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCode-excited linear predictionCodebookVector sum excited linear predictionSpeech codingLinear predictionLinear predictive codingQuantization (signal processing)Speech recognitionResidualComputer scienceHarmonic Vector Excitation CodingLinde–Buzo–Gray algorithmAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Code-excited linear prediction coding with generalized pitch prediction (GPP-CELP) requires linear prediction filtering of the stochastic codebook output prior to addition of the adaptive codebook (ACE) component. The ACE component represents a sequence of past reconstructed samples passed through a low-pass filter to reflect the reduced pitch periodicity of the higher speech frequencies. The spectrum of the residual manifests broad peaks leading to significantly narrower distributions in the LPC parameter space. Additionally, the quantization error of the residual may be masked by the significantly greater energy of the ACE component. This work compares the quantization requirements for the information required to represent the time-varying LPC filter of the GPP-CELP coder with that of the classical CELP coder. With non-predictive coding of the LPC information a bit-rate reduction from 20 bits/20 ms to 16 bits/20 ms appears feasible without introducing noticeable degradation due to quantization.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Data Compression TechniquesFrench-language works237,207