MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015391955 · doi:10.4236/jsip.2015.62010

Robust Parametric Modeling of Speech in Additive White Gaussian Noise

2015· article· en· W2015391955 on OpenAlexaff
Abdelaziz Trabelsi, Otmane Aı̈t Mohamed, Yves Audet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Signal and Information Processing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsAdditive white Gaussian noiseOverdetermined systemAutoregressive modelNoise (video)White noiseApplied mathematicsToeplitz matrixGaussian noiseEstimatorParametric statisticsStatisticsAlgorithmComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In estimating the linear prediction coefficients for an autoregressive spectral model, the concept of using the Yule-Walker equations is often invoked. In case of additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN), a typical parameter compensation method involves using a minimal set of Yule-Walker equation evaluations and removing a noise variance estimate from the principal diagonal of the autocorrelation matrix. Due to a potential over-subtraction of the noise variance, however, this method may not retain the symmetric Toeplitz structure of the autocorrelation matrix and thereby may not guarantee a positive-definite matrix estimate. As a result, a significant decrease in estimation performance may occur. To counteract this problem, a parametric modelling of speech contaminated by AWGN, assuming that the noise variance can be estimated, is herein presented. It is shown that by combining a suitable noise variance estimator with an efficient iterative scheme, a significant improvement in modelling performance can be achieved. The noise variance is estimated from the least squares analysis of an overdetermined set of p lower-order Yule-Walker equations. Simulation results indicate that the proposed method provides better parameter estimates in comparison to the standard Least Mean Squares (LMS) technique which uses a minimal set of evaluations for determining the spectral parameters.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Signal and Information ProcessingSame topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207