Experimental evaluation of radiosity for room sound-field prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An acoustical radiosity model was evaluated for how it performs in predicting real room sound fields. This was done by comparing radiosity predictions with experimental results for three existing rooms--a squash court, a classroom, and an office. Radiosity predictions were also compared with those by ray tracing--a "reference" prediction model--for both specular and diffuse surface reflection. Comparisons were made for detailed and discretized echograms, sound-decay curves, sound-propagation curves, and the variations with frequency of four room-acoustical parameters--EDT, RT, D50, and C80. In general, radiosity and diffuse ray tracing gave very similar predictions. Predictions by specular ray tracing were often very different. Radiosity agreed well with experiment in some cases, less well in others. Definitive conclusions regarding the accuracy with which the rooms were modeled, or the accuracy of the radiosity approach, were difficult to draw. The results suggest that radiosity predicts room sound fields with some accuracy, at least as well as diffuse ray tracing and, in general, better than specular ray tracing. The predictions of detailed echograms are less accurate, those of derived room-acoustical parameters more accurate. The results underline the need to develop experimental methods for accurately characterizing the absorptive and reflective characteristics of room surfaces, possible including phase.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".