Beam shape, focus index, and localization error for performance evaluation of a multisensor stethoscope beamformer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes methods for evaluating a multisensor system consisting of several stethoscope chest pieces simultaneously recording and storing audio data for computer-aided analysis. To illustrate this concept, we use a circular array of microphones in a free-field homogeneous medium and use delay-and-sum beamforming to combine the received signals. The evaluation methods shown here are applicable to any other non-homogeneous medium and beamforming technique. Beam shape, focus index, and localization error are the methods of performance evaluation discussed in this paper. Several beam shapes are shown and described. The proposed "focus index", a new performance metric, compares the power of signals received from different areas within the array and comes up with a numerical indicator of the focus achieved by the beamformer. This paper also describes a method for localizing a sound source in the near-field of a microphone array by comparing the delay between signals received at known microphone locations. Simulation as well as verification results are presented.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".