MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2394819879 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1606.00037

Nonnegative Tensor Factorization With Frequency Modulation Cues For Blind Audio Source Separation.

2016· preprint· en· W2394819879 on OpenAlexaff
Elliot Creager, Roland Badeau, Philippe Depalle

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2016
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlind signal separationComputer scienceSource separationModulation (music)Frequency modulationFactorizationSpeech recognitionTensor (intrinsic definition)Radio frequencyMathematicsPhysicsAcousticsTelecommunicationsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present Vibrato Nonnegative Tensor Factorization, an algorithm for single-channel unsupervised audio source separation with an application to separating instrumental or vocal sources with nonstationary pitch from music recordings. Our approach extends Nonnegative Matrix Factorization for audio modeling by including local estimates of frequency modulation as cues in the separation. This permits the modeling and unsupervised separation of vibrato or glissando musical sources, which is not possible with the basic matrix factorization formulation. The algorithm factorizes a sparse nonnegative tensor comprising the audio spectrogram and local frequency-slope-to-frequency ratios, which are estimated at each time-frequency bin using the Distributed Derivative Method. The use of local frequency modulations as separation cues is motivated by the principle of common fate partial grouping from Auditory Scene Analysis, which hypothesizes that each latent source in a mixture is characterized perceptually by coherent frequency and amplitude modulations shared by its component partials. We derive multiplicative factor updates by Minorization-Maximization, which guarantees convergence to a local optimum by iteration. We then compare our method to the baseline on two separation tasks: one considers synthetic vibrato notes, while the other considers vibrato string instrument recordings.

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)0.007
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.150 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207