On the Impact of Deep Learning and Feature Extraction for Arabic Audio Classification and Speaker Identification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent times, machine learning and deep learning algorithms have contributed to the advances in audio and speech recognition. Despite the progress, there is limited emphasis on the classification of cantillation audio using deep learning. This paper introduces a dataset containing two labeled styles of cantillation from six reciters. Deep learning architectures including convolutional neural networks (CNN) and deep artificial neural networks (ANN) were used to classify the recitation styles using various spectrogram features. Moreover, the classification of the six reciters was also performed using deep learning. The best performance was achieved using a CNN model and Mel spectrograms resulting in an F1-score of 0.99 on the test set for classifying recitation style and an F1-score of 1.00 on the test set for classifying reciters. The results obtained in this work outperform the existing works in the literature. The paper also discusses the impact of various audio features and deep learning algorithms that apply to audio genre and speaker identification tasks.
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 | 0.000 | 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".