MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051172238 · doi:10.1155/2010/380349

Parametric Time-Frequency Analysis and Its Applications in Music Classification

2010· article· en· W2051172238 on OpenAlexafffund
Ying Shen, Xiaoli Li, Ngok-Wah Ma, Sridhar Krishnan

Bibliographic record

VenueEURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsLinear discriminant analysisMatching pursuitPattern recognition (psychology)DiscriminantArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)SIGNAL (programming language)Time–frequency analysisParametric statisticsSpectrogramSpeech recognitionRange (aeronautics)Feature extractionSignal processingMathematicsStatisticsComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analysis of nonstationary signals, such as music signals, is a challenging task. The purpose of this study is to explore an efficient and powerful technique to analyze and classify music signals in higher frequency range (44.1 kHz). The pursuit methods are good tools for this purpose, but they aimed at representing the signals rather than classifying them as in Y. Paragakin et al., 2009. Among the pursuit methods, matching pursuit (MP), an adaptive true nonstationary time-frequency signal analysis tool, is applied for music classification. First, MP decomposes the sample signals into time-frequency functions or atoms. Atom parameters are then analyzed and manipulated, and discriminant features are extracted from atom parameters. Besides the parameters obtained using MP, an additional feature, central energy, is also derived. Linear discriminant analysis and the leave-one-out method are used to evaluate the classification accuracy rate for different feature sets. The study is one of the very few works that analyze atoms statistically and extract discriminant features directly from the parameters. From our experiments, it is evident that the MP algorithm with the Gabor dictionary decomposes nonstationary signals, such as music signals, into atoms in which the parameters contain strong discriminant information sufficient for accurate and efficient signal classifications.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.670

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal ProcessingSame topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207