Forced-alignment of the sung acoustic signal using deep neural nets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sung speech shows significant acoustic differences from normal speech, both careful and spontaneous speech. To analyse and better understand why sung speech presents a unique challenge for tools such as forced aligners and automatic transcribers, we trained a deep neural network to extract phone-level information from a sung acoustic signal. The current best network takes as input raw audio from a singer and outputs time-aligned phoneme labels that predict the phoneme that the singer is producing at ten millisecond increments. We use audio data from the Folkways collection, as maintained by the University of Alberta Sound Studies Institute. The data consists of several folk songs, mostly sung acapella by a few individual singers. Before being used as training or testing data, each song was aligned by hand, sectioning off each individual phoneme that appears and setting the start and endpoint. The data is also cut into twenty-five millisecond frames spaced ten milliseconds apart. Each will receive a label from the network, which will be compared with the label given by the transcription in order to evaluate the network’s performance. To further increase the amount of training data, all of the data was duplicated and noise was added to them. The performance of the network is evaluated automatically during training by comparing the output label that the network chose for a given frame to the label assigned to that frame by the human transcriber. After all of the frames have been evaluated, the network is assigned an accuracy score that reflects how many labels it assigned correctly. By this method, we found that the acoustic differences between speech and sung speech are significantly different enough that the tasks require separate acoustic models. However, using training data from both genres increased the accuracy of the overall model.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".