MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045302321 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.13703

From Sound Representation to Model Robustness

2020· preprint· en· W3045302321 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Esmaeilpour

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Computer scienceSpectrogramPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceMel-frequency cepstrumSpeech recognitionConvolutional neural networkResidualShort-time Fourier transformDiscrete wavelet transformFeature extractionWaveletFourier transformWavelet transformMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we investigate the impact of different standard environmental sound representations (spectrograms) on the recognition performance and adversarial attack robustness of a victim residual convolutional neural network. Averaged over various experiments on three benchmarking environmental sound datasets, we found the ResNet-18 model outperforms other deep learning architectures such as GoogLeNet and AlexNet both in terms of classification accuracy and the number of training parameters. Therefore we set this model as our front-end classifier for subsequent investigations. Herein, we measure the impact of different settings required for generating more informative mel-frequency cepstral coefficient (MFCC), short-time Fourier transform (STFT), and discrete wavelet transform (DWT) representations on our front-end model. This measurement involves comparing the classification performance over the adversarial robustness. On the balance of average budgets allocated by adversary and the cost of attack, we demonstrate an inverse relationship between recognition accuracy and model robustness against six attack algorithms. Moreover, our experimental results show that while the ResNet-18 model trained on DWT spectrograms achieves the highest recognition accuracy, attacking this model is relatively more costly for the adversary compared to other 2D representations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.087 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAnomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207