MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103734388 · doi:10.1109/icif.2003.177357

Robust speech separation using two-stage independent component analysis

2003· article· en· W2103734388 on OpenAlexaff
Parham Aarabi, Sam Mavandadi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndependent component analysisKurtosisMicrophoneComputer scienceSpeech recognitionNoise (video)Blind signal separationSet (abstract data type)Speech enhancementBackground noiseSource separationSIGNAL (programming language)Pattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsStatisticsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a two stage speech (8, 21. Standard ICA, however, suffers from several lim- separation architecture involving a microphone selec- itations. First, there is assumed to be as many ideal tion stage and an Independent Component Analysis mixed signals available as there are independent sig- (ICA) stage. Standalone ICA often fails to correctly nals. In practice, there will always be additive noise as separate speech signals in the presence of Gaussian well as reverberations in an acoustic environment that noise, even occasionally resulting in a reduced signal- make obtaining an ideal mixed signal difficult if not to-noise ratio (SNR) relative to the original mized sig- impossible. The second issue regarding ICA is its ap n&. The technique proposed here utilizes a kurtosis- plication to situations where a large number of micro- based genetic microphone selection mechanism in order phones are present, but only a few independent speech to select an optimal set of microphones from a large sources are present. Take, for example, a small room number of microphones that are agsumed to be wad- with 20 microphones and three simultaneous speakers. able. ICA is performed on the sign& of the selected Does one perform ICA on all 20 microphones, which is microphones and the avemge output kurtosis is used to computationally expensive, or should a certain set of update the microphone selections. This technique re- microphones, say 3, be selected and used? If a small sults in an average improvement of approzimately 11 set of microphones is selected, then how is this selec- dB in the output SNR relative to the result obtained by tion accomplished? What metric can be used to aid a random selection of microphones. The dmwback of the selection process? this technique is its failure in the presence of leptokur- T&~ paper attempts to ansmr these questions by tic noise. proposing a separation-quality metric based on the kurtosis of each of the separated channels. This metric

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.263 · 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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207