New insights into the noise reduction Wiener filter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of noise reduction has attracted a considerable amount of research attention over the past several decades. Among the numerous techniques that were developed, the optimal Wiener filter can be considered as one of the most fundamental noise reduction approaches, which has been delineated in different forms and adopted in various applications. Although it is not a secret that the Wiener filter may cause some detrimental effects to the speech signal (appreciable or even significant degradation in quality or intelligibility), few efforts have been reported to show the inherent relationship between noise reduction and speech distortion. By defining a speech-distortion index to measure the degree to which the speech signal is deformed and two noise-reduction factors to quantify the amount of noise being attenuated, this paper studies the quantitative performance behavior of the Wiener filter in the context of noise reduction. We show that in the single-channel case the a posteriori signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) (defined after the Wiener filter) is greater than or equal to the a priori SNR (defined before the Wiener filter), indicating that the Wiener filter is always able to achieve noise reduction. However, the amount of noise reduction is in general proportional to the amount of speech degradation. This may seem discouraging as we always expect an algorithm to have maximal noise reduction without much speech distortion. Fortunately, we show that speech distortion can be better managed in three different ways. If we have some a priori knowledge (such as the linear prediction coefficients) of the clean speech signal, this a priori knowledge can be exploited to achieve noise reduction while maintaining a low level of speech distortion. When no a priori knowledge is available, we can still achieve a better control of noise reduction and speech distortion by properly manipulating the Wiener filter, resulting in a suboptimal Wiener filter. In case that we have multiple microphone sensors, the multiple observations of the speech signal can be used to reduce noise with less or even no speech distortion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".