MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2405813418 · doi:10.5072/zenodo.243638

A Cross-Validated Study of Modelling Strategies for Automatic Chord Recognition in Audio.

2007· article· en· W2405813418 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCRFSChord (peer-to-peer)Computer scienceGround truthConditional random fieldCross-validationnobodyArtificial intelligenceSpeech recognitionSet (abstract data type)Baseline (sea)Machine learningData miningPattern recognition (psychology)Database

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although automatic chord recognition has generated a number of recent papers in MIR, nobody to date has done a proper cross validation of their recognition results. Cross validation is the most common way to establish baseline standards and make comparisons, e.g., for MIREX competitions, but a lack of labelled aligned training data has rendered it impractical. In this paper, we present a comparison of several modelling strategies for chord recognition, hiddenMarkov models (HMMs) and conditional random fields (CRFs), on a new set of aligned ground truth for the Beatles data set of Sheh and Ellis (2003). Consistent with previous work, our models use pitch class profile (PCP) vectors for audio modelling. Our results show improvement over previous literature, provide precise estimates of the performance of both old and new approaches to the problem, and suggest several avenues for future work.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.007
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.217 · 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