Speech Enhancement Based on Nonlinear Models Using Particle Filters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivated by the reportedly strong performance of particle filters (PFs) for noise reduction on essentially linear speech production models, and the mounting evidence that the introduction of nonlinearities can lead to a refined speech model, this paper presents a study of PF solutions to the problem of speech enhancement in the context of nonlinear, neural-type speech models. Several variations of a global model are presented (single/multiple neurons; bias/no bias), and corresponding PF solutions are derived. Different importance functions are given when beneficial, Rao-Blackwellization is proposed when possible, and dual/nondual versions of each algorithms are presented. The method shown can handle both white and colored noise. Using a variety of speech and noise signals and different objective quality measures, the performance of these algorithms are evaluated against other PF solutions running on linear models, as well as some traditional enhancement algorithms. A certain hierarchy in performance is established between each algorithm in the paper. Depending on the experimental conditions, the best-performing algorithms are a classical Rao-Blackwellized particle filter (RBPF) running on a linear model, and a proposed PF employing a nondual, nonlinear model with multiple neurons and no biases. With consistence, the neural-network-based PF outperforms RBPF at low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".