MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098651198 · doi:10.1109/tsmcb.2004.826398

Enhanced Sound Localization

2004· article· en· W2098651198 on OpenAlexaff
B. Mungamuru, Parham Aarabi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part B (Cybernetics) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrophoneReverberationAcoustic source localizationDirectivityAcousticsOrientation (vector space)Sound localizationRangingMicrophone arrayComputer scienceSound (geography)Noise-canceling microphoneMathematicsPhysicsSound pressureTelecommunicationsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new approach to sound localization, known as enhanced sound localization, is introduced, offering two major benefits over state-of-the-art algorithms. First, higher localization accuracy can be achieved compared to existing methods. Second, an estimate of the source orientation is obtained jointly, as a consequence of the proposed sound localization technique. The orientation estimates and improved localizations are a result of explicitly modeling the various factors that affect a microphone's level of access to different spatial positions and orientations in an acoustic environment. Three primary factors are accounted for, namely the source directivity, microphone directivity, and source-microphone distances. Using this model of the acoustic environment, several different enhanced sound localization algorithms are derived. Experiments are carried out in a real environment whose reverberation time is 0.1 seconds, with the average microphone SNR ranging between 10-20 dB. Using a 24-element microphone array, a weighted version of the SRP-PHAT algorithm is found to give an average localization error of 13.7 cm with 3.7% anomalies, compared to 14.7 cm and 7.8% anomalies with the standard SRP-PHAT technique.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.236
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations133
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part B (Cybernetics)Same topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207