MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficiency of Spectral Subtraction Algorithms for an Urban Audio Acquisition System Using IoT Devices

2022· article· en· W4293053511 on OpenAlexaff
Evan Fallis, Petros Spachos, Stefano Gregori

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceNoise (video)Audio signalBackground subtractionNoise pollutionAmbient noise levelEnvironmental noiseAudio analyzerReal-time computingAudio signal processingSpeech recognitionComputer visionSound (geography)Noise reductionAcousticsSpeech coding

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ambient audio acquisition systems gather information about the noise levels in a specific area. Such systems chart the environment based on averaged sound parameters as they change over time. This can improve human life by detecting nuisance noise as well as sound levels hazardous to human health and by allowing citizens, business owners and urban planners to visualize the noise pollution in their city. An efficient way to monitor the noise is through cost-effective, small-size Internet of Thing (IoT) devices that monitor, record and report the noise level. However, the prevalence of wind and electrical interference and artefacts in urban environments affects the fidelity of audio acquisitions. Filtering out these unwanted contributions allows the analysis of relevant sounds. In this paper, three spectral subtraction algorithms are compared and applied to urban sound clips to reduce unwanted noise from audio recordings. The effectiveness of the Boll, Berouti, and Kamath algorithms for reducing noise in various sounds found in urban environments was assessed. Then, an IoT device was used to collect real data from an outdoor environment, using a spectral subtraction algorithm. According to experimental results, the Kamath algorithm increases the signal-to-noise ratio by 20 dB and improves the resemblance to the true audio signal.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207