An effective, simple tempo estimation method based on self-similarity and regularity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tempo estimation is a fundamental problem in music information retrieval. It also forms the basis of other types of rhythmic analysis such as beat tracking and pattern detection. There is a large body of work in tempo estimation using a variety of different approaches that differ in their accuracy as well as their complexity. Fundamentally they take advantage of two properties of musical rhythm: 1) the music signal tends to be self-similar at periodicities related to the underlying rhythmic structure, 2) rhythmic events tend to be spaced regularly in time. We propose an algorithm for tempo estimation that is based on these two properties. We have tried to reduce the number of steps, parameters and modeling assumptions while retaining good performance and causality. The proposed approach outperforms a large number of existing tempo estimation methods and has similar performance to the best-performing ones. We believe that we have conducted the most comprehensive evaluation to date of tempo induction algorithms in terms of number of datasets and tracks.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it