MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Direction of Arrival Estimation of Moving Sound Sources using Deep Learning

2022· article· en· W4283728643 on OpenAlexaff
Jana Rusrus, Martin Bouchard, Shervin Shirmohammadi

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (I2MTC) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperparameterComputer scienceReverberationDirection of arrivalDeep learningArtificial intelligenceTask (project management)MultilaterationPrecision and recallArtificial neural networkSpeech recognitionRecallPattern recognition (psychology)AcousticsTelecommunicationsAntenna (radio)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sound source localization is an important task for several applications and the use of deep learning for this task has recently become a popular research topic. While nearly all previous work has focused on static sound sources, in this paper we evaluate the performance of a deep learning classification system for localization of moving sound sources and we evaluate the effect of different hyperparameters and acoustic conditions. A feedforward neural network is used to estimate the direction of arrival of moving sound sources, with Short Time Fourier Transform input features. Diverse synthetic datasets are generated to represent different acoustic conditions, and hyperparameters are tested to determine which combination results in better direction-of-arrival detection for moving sources. We evaluate the performance of the different combinations in terms of precision and recall, in a multi-class multi-label classification framework, and we find that (1) the number of frequency bins and the reverberation time have a significant effect for localizing high-speed sources, and (2) precision and recall decay slowly at low speeds while dropping sharply at high speeds.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.377
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (I2MTC)Same topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207