MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802411457 · doi:10.1121/1.5035272

Beamforming based on null-steering with small spacing linear microphone arrays

2018· article· en· W2802411457 on OpenAlexaff
Changlei Li, Jacob Benesty, Jingdong Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBeamformingMicrophoneNull (SQL)Microphone arrayAdaptive beamformerAcousticsComputer scienceNoise-canceling microphoneReduction (mathematics)Noise (video)AlgorithmDirectivityNoise reductionInvariant (physics)MathematicsPhysicsSound pressureTelecommunicationsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper develops an approach to beamforming with small spacing uniform linear microphone arrays based on the null-steering (NS) principle. It first formulates the beamforming problem from the conventional mean-squared error (MSE) criterion and its normalized version. Several NS algorithms are then derived for beamforming with the constraint of placing nulls to either a single direction or multiple angles. The difference and relationships between different algorithms are discussed and their performances are evaluated. These algorithms can be used to design either fixed or adaptive beamformers. In the former case, the resulting beamformers work as differential microphone arrays (DMAs) since they exhibit frequency-invariant beampatterns and their directivity factors are high with a given number of sensors. In the latter case, the resulting beamformers can be viewed as a combination of DMAs and single-channel noise reduction since they do not only exhibit frequency-invariant beampatterns but also can achieve noise reduction based on the noise statistics.

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 score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207