MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295128257 · doi:10.1007/s10032-022-00411-w

Domain adaptation for staff-region retrieval of music score images

2022· article· en· W4295128257 on OpenAlexafffund
Francisco J. Castellanos, Antonio‐Javier Gallego, Jorge Calvo-Zaragoza, Ichiro Fujinaga

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal on Document Analysis and Recognition (IJDAR) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et CultureAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónGeneralitat ValencianaAmerican Concrete Institute Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceClassifier (UML)Domain adaptationArtificial intelligenceWorkflowInferenceDomain (mathematical analysis)Artificial neural networkMachine learningAnnotationDocumentationProcess (computing)Information retrievalDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Optical music recognition (OMR) is the field that studies how to automatically read music notation from score images. One of the relevant steps within the OMR workflow is the staff-region retrieval. This process is a key step because any undetected staff will not be processed by the subsequent steps. This task has previously been addressed as a supervised learning problem in the literature; however, ground-truth data are not always available, so each new manuscript requires a preliminary manual annotation. This situation is one of the main bottlenecks in OMR, because of the countless number of existing manuscripts , and the associated manual labeling cost. With the aim of mitigating this issue, we propose the application of a domain adaptation technique, the so-called Domain-Adversarial Neural Network (DANN), based on a combination of a gradient reversal layer and a domain classifier in the inference neural architecture. The results from our experiments support the benefits of our proposed solution, obtaining improvements of approximately 29% in the F-score.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal on Document Analysis and Recognition (IJDAR)Same topicMusic and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207