REVIEW 1 cited by
TDFNet: An Efficient Audio-Visual Speech Separation Model with Top-down Fusion
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Audio-visual speech separation has gained significant traction in recent years due to its potential applications in various fields such as speech recognition, diarization, scene analysis and assistive technologies. Designing a lightweight audio-visual speech separation network is important for low-latency applications, but existing methods often require higher computational costs and more parameters to achieve better separation performance. In this paper, we present an audio-visual speech separation model called Top-Down-Fusion Net (TDFNet), a state-of-the-art (SOTA) model for audio-visual speech separation, which builds upon the architecture of TDANet, an audio-only speech separation method. TDANet serves as the architectural foundation for the auditory and visual networks within TDFNet, offering an efficient model with fewer parameters. On the LRS2-2Mix dataset, TDFNet achieves a performance increase of up to 10\% across all performance metrics compared with the previous SOTA method CTCNet. Remarkably, these results are achieved using fewer parameters and only 28\% of the multiply-accumulate operations (MACs) of CTCNet. In essence, our method presents a highly effective and efficient solution to the challenges of speech separation within the audio-visual domain, making significant strides in harnessing visual information optimally.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
AI for Regulatory Affairs: Balancing Accuracy, Interpretability, and Computational Cost in Medical Device Classification
CNN (88.3% accuracy) and XGBoost (86%) beat zero-shot LLMs (about 46%) on NMPA medical device classification, with no single model winning on accuracy, interpretability, and cost simultaneously.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.