MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136866346 · doi:10.1109/issse.2007.4294497

A Pitch Detection Method for Speech Signals with Low Signal-to-Noise Ratio

2007· article· en· W2136866346 on OpenAlexaff
Celia Shahnaz, Wei‐Ping Zhu, M. Omair Ahmad

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPitch detection algorithmSpeech recognitionComputer scienceNoise (video)Noise reductionResidualSpeech codingWhite noiseSpeech enhancementSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Inverse filterLinear predictive codingSIGNAL (programming language)Noise measurementSpeech processingInverseAlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligenceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new method for the pitch detection of speech severely degraded by a white noise is presented in this paper. We intend to incorporate a noise reduction approach based on a modified power spectral subtraction scheme to enhance the pre-processed speech prior to pitch estimation. The de-noised speech is then passed through an inverse filter, whose parameters are derived from the linear prediction (LP) analysis, yielding an output referred to as the LP residual. Since the LP residual is capable of delivering the knowledge of glottal closure events, it is utilized to propose a new average magnitude sum function (AMSF) and an average magnitude difference function (AMDF) both of which exhibit the periodicity at the pitch period. Exploiting the property that the AMDF shows a notch while the AMSF produces a peak, the AMDF is weighted by the reciprocal of the AMSF to reinforce the pitch-harmonic-notches in a heavy noise. Simulation results using the Keele database guarantee a superior pitch detection efficacy of the proposed approach for a white noise-corrupted speech compared to some of the existing methods at a very 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207