Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A Zero-Shot Physics-Informed Dictionary Learning Approach for Sound Field Reconstruction

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read By forcing dictionary atoms to satisfy the Helmholtz equation, a sound field can be reconstructed from tens of microphones with no training data.

desk verdict Zero-shot Helmholtz-regularized dictionary learning works on one classroom, but the boundary-condition loophole and the per-atom frequency issue weaken the 'physically meaningful' claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18348 v1 pith:2K4BCZQY submitted 2024-12-24 eess.AS eess.SP

Stefano Damiano , Federico Miotello , Mirco Pezzoli , Alberto Bernardini , Fabio Antonacci , Augusto Sarti , Toon van Waterschoot This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.ASeess.SP
keywords soundfieldreconstructiondictionarylearningHelmholtzequationzero-shotphysics-informedsparsecodingfinite-differencediscretizationroomacoustics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a sound field can be reconstructed from a handful of pressure measurements by learning a dictionary of atoms on the spot—zero-shot—provided each atom is forced to satisfy the Helmholtz equation. The authors argue that this physics constraint replaces the large pre-training dataset that supervised dictionary learning needs, because the regularization propagates information from the measured rows to the whole $69\times69$ grid. On real classroom recordings from 600 to 1200 Hz, they report that the proposed method matches the supervised OLDL baseline in both normalized mean-squared error and cross-correlation, while using only the measurements themselves. The point of the claim is that physical plausibility can substitute for data when learning sparse representations of wave fields.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the second-order finite-difference matrix $H(k)\in\mathbb{R}^{N^2\times N^2}$, a symmetric five-diagonal Toeplitz matrix whose stencil $[-4+k^2h^2, 1, \dots, 1]$ discretizes the Helmholtz operator $(\nabla^2 + k^2)$ on the grid. The dictionary update step minimizes $\|\tilde p - \tilde D x\|_2^2 + \beta\sum_l \|H(\omega_l/c)d_l\|_2^2$, which pushes each atom $d_l$ to be an approximate solution of the Helmholtz equation at its assigned frequency $\omega_l$. Since $H$ touches every grid position, the physics term updates the entire dictionary, not just the rows where microphones sit; that propagation is what lets the method work zero-shot. The alternating optimization (sparse coding with $\ell^1$ regularization, then dictionary update) follows the standard dictionary-learning loop, with the Helmholtz term added only in the dictionary step.

What would settle it

Run the same classroom experiment with the Helmholtz residual computed only at interior grid nodes (or with measured boundary values imposed) and compare NMSE; if the reconstruction changes materially, the boundary treatment of $H(k)$ is doing real work and the physics-enforcement mechanism as stated is not the full explanation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that enforcing $\nabla^2 p + k^2 p = 0$ on each dictionary atom through a finite-difference operator $H(k)$ makes dictionary learning work without any training corpus. Given $M$ observed pressures $\tilde p$ from an $N\times N$ grid, the method alternates sparse coding of the coefficients $x$ and a dictionary update whose objective includes the Helmholtz residual $\beta\sum_l \|H(\omega_l/c)d_l\|_2^2$. Because the regularization ties every atom to a physical wavenumber, the unmeasured rows of the dictionary are updated too, so a few microphones suffice to synthesize the full field via $p = D\hat x$. The reported consequence is that with $M=50$ microphones the zero-shot dictionary achieves NMSE and NCC comparable to the state-of-the-art supervised dictionary learning method across the 600–1200 Hz band, and with as few as $M=10$ microphones it still outperforms the fixed Bessel-function baseline.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that applying the finite-difference Helmholtz operator to the whole $69\times69$ grid, including its edges where the stencil has no physical boundary condition, still yields atoms that faithfully represent the measured pressure inside the room.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With $M=50$ microphones, the zero-shot method matches the supervised OLDL baseline on real classroom data, so pre-training on a separate room becomes unnecessary for comparable accuracy in this setting.
  • A dictionary learned from one frequency sub-band reconstructs the field at unseen frequencies inside that sub-band, because atoms spaced 10 Hz apart interpolate during synthesis.
  • Because no training data is needed, the method can be applied immediately to a new room from its sparse measurements, including rooms unlike the training environment of supervised baselines.
  • The atoms are physically meaningful solutions of the Helmholtz equation, so each coefficient in the sparse representation is tied to a specific frequency component rather than to an arbitrary data-derived pattern.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the Helmholtz regularization is the active ingredient, the same zero-shot trick could be ported to other dictionary families—plane waves, equivalent sources, spherical harmonics—turning any fixed-basis method into a data-free one.
  • The boundary treatment is testable: applying $H(k)$ only at interior nodes would show whether the implicit edge handling is harmless, an experiment the paper does not run.
  • The gap between the proposed method and the supervised baseline stays small even as $M$ drops to 10, so the physics prior may be compensating precisely in the data-poor regime where supervised training is impossible.
  • Because the dictionary is learned per room and per frequency band, the method naturally adapts to changes in the acoustic scene—a property that a fixed pre-trained dictionary cannot offer.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a zero-shot physics-informed dictionary learning method for sound field reconstruction. The method learns a dictionary of spatial atoms directly from a sparse set of pressure measurements, regularized by a finite-difference discretization of the Helmholtz equation applied to each atom. The dictionary is initialized with a Bessel-function baseline dictionary, and the algorithm alternates between sparse coding and a Helmholtz-regularized dictionary update. The method is evaluated on a real classroom dataset, comparing NMSE and NCC against the Bessel baseline (BL) and the supervised OLDL method, across frequencies and numbers of microphones. The reported results show that the proposed method performs comparably to OLDL and better than BL, with the advantage of not requiring pre-training on additional data.

Significance. If validated, the method would offer a useful zero-shot alternative to supervised dictionary learning for sound field reconstruction, requiring only a few in-situ measurements and no external training data. The paper is clear in its algorithmic description and uses real-world measurements, which is a strength. However, the physical correctness of the Helmholtz regularizer, the interpretation of the learned atoms across frequencies, and the validation of hyperparameters are not fully established. The comparison against only supervised (OLDL) and non-learned (BL) baselines also leaves the zero-shot claim partially unsubstantiated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (7)-(9)] The 5-diagonal Toeplitz matrix H(k) defined in Eq. (7) is applied to the full N^2 grid with no boundary treatment. For rows where the five-point stencil extends outside the 69x69 aperture, the missing entries are implicitly zero, which corresponds to homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions at the aperture edges. The measurement plane is an interior cross-section of a classroom, not a sound-soft boundary, so these boundary conditions are not physical. The Helmholtz penalty in Eq. (9) therefore biases atoms toward zero at the aperture boundaries, which can distort the learned dictionary. The authors should either restrict the Helmholtz penalty to grid points whose stencil is fully interior, or demonstrate quantitatively that the boundary error is negligible for the tested frequencies and grid size. As written, the claim that atoms are "physically meaningful" is not fully supported.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (9) and Sec. IV-B] Each atom d_l is regularized to satisfy the Helmholtz equation at its own frequency omega_l, with frequencies spaced by 10 Hz over a 200 Hz band. The reconstruction at a single frequency f is obtained as a linear combination of these atoms in Eq. (4). Unless only one atom is active, a superposition of solutions to Helmholtz at different wavenumbers does not satisfy the Helmholtz equation at the reconstruction frequency f. The text in Sec. IV-B acknowledges that interpolation between atoms is performed, but it does not justify this interpolation physically. The authors should clarify whether the claim is that the reconstructed field itself satisfies the Helmholtz equation, or only that each atom is a Helmholtz solution at its own frequency; the latter is a weaker statement and should be made explicit.
  3. [Sec. IV-B, hyperparameters] The hyperparameters alpha=1 and beta=0.1 are reported as "obtained via a grid search," but the data used for this grid search is not specified. If the grid search used the same test measurements or the ground truth, this constitutes tuning on the test set and compromises the zero-shot claim. The authors should state the validation procedure, e.g., a hold-out subset of the available measurements, and provide sensitivity analysis or at least the range over which performance is stable.
  4. [Sec. IV-A, Eq. (12)] The NCC definition in Eq. (12) appears incorrect: NCC = |p_hat^H p| / (||p_hat||^2_2 * ||p||^2_2). If p_hat = p, this quotient equals 1/||p||^2_2 rather than 1, so it is not a normalized correlation coefficient. The standard definition uses the product of the 2-norms in the denominator, not the product of their squares. This typo affects the interpretation of all reported NCC values; the authors should correct the equation or clarify the actual computation used.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV-B] The comparison would be strengthened by including at least one zero-shot baseline, such as deep prior (Refs. [8],[25]) or a physics-informed neural network (Refs. [26]-[31]), to substantiate the claim that the proposed method is competitive while requiring no training data; currently the only non-supervised baseline is the non-learned BL.
  2. [Sec. IV-B, Fig. 2] The paper reports results averaged over 5 random microphone configurations with standard deviation, but the microphone selection procedure is not described beyond being "randomly extracted"; a sentence on the sampling scheme (uniform random, stratified, etc.) would aid reproducibility.
  3. [Throughout] There are minor typographical errors, e.g., "intialized" in Sec. IV-B and "introduced" in Sec. V, which should be corrected.
  4. [Sec. III, Algorithm 1] The dictionary update step is described as minimizing the objective with respect to D, but the update rule for each atom is not given; a closed-form or numerical solution would be helpful for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the numerical comparison is external, and the only mild issue is that the 'physically meaningful atoms' claim restates the enforced Helmholtz penalty rather than being an independent finding.

  1. self definitional [Abstract and Section III, Eq. (9)]
    "Moreover, by enforcing the Helmholtz equation during the optimization process, the proposed approach ensures that the reconstructed sound field is represented as a linear combination of a few physically meaningful atoms."

    The property 'physically meaningful' is not established independently of the optimization objective; it is defined as satisfaction of the Helmholtz equation, and Eq. (9) imposes this through the regularization term beta * sum_l ||H(omega_l/c) d_l||_2^2. Any converged dictionary is therefore Helmholtz-satisfying by construction, so the abstract's 'ensures' is a restatement of the regularization term rather than a derived prediction. The numerical comparisons to OLDL and BL are external and non-circular, so this is a framing issue rather than a fitted result.

full rationale

The paper's main quantitative claim is not circular. The proposed method is compared against an external baseline dictionary (Bessel-based) and against the supervised OLDL method of Hahmann et al. [4], using an external real-world classroom dataset [1]. The reconstruction error is measured against ground-truth pressure fields, so the reported NMSE and NCC are independent of the method's own fitted quantities. The Helmholtz regularization is a genuine prior: it constrains the learned atoms to the nullspace of the discrete Helmholtz operator and does not by itself determine the measured data fit. Although the dictionary is initialized with the BL dictionary, the proposed method still updates the dictionary using the observed measurements and the physics penalty, so the comparison is meaningful. The paper contains many self-citations, but they are contextual related-work citations and none is load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or prior-work conclusion is invoked to forbid alternatives. The main caveats are not circularity: the 'physically meaningful atoms' language is definitional because Helmholtz satisfaction is enforced by construction, and the hyperparameters alpha and beta are obtained by grid search on the evaluation setup, which is a tuning concern rather than a circular reduction. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own input, so the overall circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method rests on several imported modeling choices: the homogeneous Helmholtz equation as the physical prior, the 5-point finite-difference approximation of that equation, the sparsity of the sound field in a frequency-spaced atom dictionary, and the success of alternating optimization. None of these are derived in the paper; they are asserted or inherited from earlier work. The four fitted or hand-chosen design values (alpha, beta, L, atom frequency grid) directly affect the reported accuracy.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha (L1 sparsity weight) = 1
    Tuned by grid search; no validation split stated, so tuning may use evaluation data.
  • beta (Helmholtz penalty weight) = 0.1
    Tuned by grid search with the same validation ambiguity as alpha.
  • L (number of atoms) = 21
    Selected by preliminary analysis; larger L is reported not to improve performance.
  • Atom frequency grid (range and spacing) = 200 Hz range, 10 Hz spacing
    Design choice for the dictionary; the paper states it affects interpolation between atoms without quantitative justification.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The measured pressure field in the source-free measurement aperture satisfies the homogeneous Helmholtz equation at each frequency.
    Invoked in Sec. III Eq. (6) and (9); valid in an ideal source-free region, but reflections and the single source in the room corner may invalidate it near the aperture edges.
  • ad hoc to paper The 5-point finite-difference matrix H(k) in Eq. (7) is an adequate discrete approximation of the Helmholtz operator on the grid, despite no explicit boundary conditions.
    The paper does not specify how grid boundaries are handled; the first row as printed suggests implicit zero-padding, which is not physically justified for an interior aperture.
  • domain assumption A sound field at a given frequency can be sparsely represented by L=21 atoms whose frequencies are spaced by 10 Hz, and reconstruction at intermediate frequencies is valid.
    This anchors the dictionary design in Sec. IV; no analysis or validation of this sparsity assumption is provided.
  • domain assumption Alternating optimization of the nonconvex problem in Eq. (9) converges to a useful solution in I=40 iterations.
    Algorithm 1; no convergence analysis or sensitivity to initialization is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Zero-Shot Physics-Informed Dictionary Learning Approach for Sound Field Reconstruction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2K4BCZQY

@misc{pith2026241218348,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Zero-Shot Physics-Informed Dictionary Learning Approach for Sound Field Reconstruction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2K4BCZQY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18348}
}
read the original abstract

Sound field reconstruction aims to estimate pressure fields in areas lacking direct measurements. Existing techniques often rely on strong assumptions or face challenges related to data availability or the explicit modeling of physical properties. To bridge these gaps, this study introduces a zero-shot, physics-informed dictionary learning approach to perform sound field reconstruction. Our method relies only on a few sparse measurements to learn a dictionary, without the need for additional training data. Moreover, by enforcing the Helmholtz equation during the optimization process, the proposed approach ensures that the reconstructed sound field is represented as a linear combination of a few physically meaningful atoms. Evaluations on real-world data show that our approach achieves comparable performance to state-of-the-art dictionary learning techniques, with the advantage of requiring only a few observations of the sound field and no training on a dataset.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18348 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Average (solid line) and standard deviation (shaded area) of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Average (solid line) and standard deviation (shaded area) of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Magnitude of the sound field at f = 600 Hz on the 69 × 69 point grid, reconstructed using the BL, OLDL and proposed method and compared with the measured ground truth. The reconstruction is performed using M = 50 microphones, depicted on the leftmost plot. OLDL and the proposed method both outperform the BL in the entire frequency range, achieving a comparable performance. Nevertheless, while OLDL is a supervised le… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Physics-Informed Neural Network-Driven Sparse Field Discretization Method for Near-Field Acoustic Holography

    eess.AS 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A self-supervised physics-informed neural network using the discretized Kirchhoff-Helmholtz integral and virtual-plane constraints reconstructs source velocity more accurately than compressive equivalent-source method...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Acoustic frequency responses in a conventional classroom,

    M. Hahmann, S. A. Verburg Riezu, and E. Fernandez Grande, “Acoustic frequency responses in a conventional classroom,” 2021. [Available]: https://findit.dtu.dk/en/catalog/2686334155

    work page arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Meshrir: A dataset of room impulse responses on meshed grid points for evaluating sound field analysis and synthesis methods,

    S. Koyama, T. Nishida, K. Kimura, T. Abe, N. Ueno, and J. Brunnstr ¨om, “Meshrir: A dataset of room impulse responses on meshed grid points for evaluating sound field analysis and synthesis methods,” in Proc. 2021 IEEE Workshop Appl. Signal Process. Audio Acoust. (WASPAA), pp. 1–5, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Room Impulse Response Interpolation Using a Sparse Spatio-Temporal Representation of the Sound Field,

    N. Antonello, E. De Sena, M. Moonen, P. A. Naylor, and T. van Waterschoot, “Room Impulse Response Interpolation Using a Sparse Spatio-Temporal Representation of the Sound Field,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Audio, Speech, Language Process. , vol. 25, pp. 1929–1941, Oct. 2017

    work page 1929

  4. [4]

    Spatial re- construction of sound fields using local and data-driven functions,

    M. Hahmann, S. A. Verburg, and E. Fernandez-Grande, “Spatial re- construction of sound fields using local and data-driven functions,” J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 150, pp. 4417–4428, Dec. 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    Sparse Representation of a Spatial Sound Field in a Reverberant Environment,

    S. Koyama and L. Daudet, “Sparse Representation of a Spatial Sound Field in a Reverberant Environment,” IEEE J. Selected Topics Signal Process., vol. 13, pp. 172–184, Mar. 2019

    2019

  6. [6]

    A Compressive Sensing Approach for the Reconstruction of the Soundfield Produced by Directive Sources in Reverberant Rooms,

    S. Damiano, F. Borra, A. Bernardini, F. Antonacci, and A. Sarti, “A Compressive Sensing Approach for the Reconstruction of the Soundfield Produced by Directive Sources in Reverberant Rooms,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Audio, Speech, Language Process., vol. 32, pp. 2667–2679, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Reconstruction of sound field through diffusion models,

    F. Miotello, L. Comanducci, M. Pezzoli, A. Bernardini, F. Antonacci, and A. Sarti, “Reconstruction of sound field through diffusion models,” in Proc. 2024 IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech Signal Process. (ICASSP), pp. 1476–1480, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Deep prior approach for room impulse response reconstruction,

    M. Pezzoli, D. Perini, A. Bernardini, F. Borra, F. Antonacci, and A. Sarti, “Deep prior approach for room impulse response reconstruction,” Sen- sors, vol. 22, no. 7, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Kernel ridge regression with constraint of helmholtz equation for sound field interpolation,

    N. Ueno, S. Koyama, and H. Saruwatari, “Kernel ridge regression with constraint of helmholtz equation for sound field interpolation,” in Proc. 16th Int. Workshop Acoust. Signal Enhancement (IWAENC) , 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Impulse response inter- polation using optimal transport,

    D. Sundstr ¨om, F. Elvander, and A. Jakobsson, “Impulse response inter- polation using optimal transport,” in Proc. 57th Asilomar Conf. Signals, Systems Computers, pp. 1350–1354, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    A para- metric approach to virtual miking for sources of arbitrary directivity,

    M. Pezzoli, F. Borra, F. Antonacci, S. Tubaro, and A. Sarti, “A para- metric approach to virtual miking for sources of arbitrary directivity,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Audio, Speech, Language Process., vol. 28, pp. 2333– 2348, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Joint Source Localization and Dereverberation by Sound Field Interpolation Using Sparse Regularization,

    N. Antonello, E. De Sena, M. Moonen, P. A. Naylor, and T. van Waterschoot, “Joint Source Localization and Dereverberation by Sound Field Interpolation Using Sparse Regularization,” in Proc. 2018 IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech Signal Process. (ICASSP) , (Calgary, Canada), pp. ...

    2018

  5. [13]

    Amplitude matching for multizone sound field control,

    T. Abe, S. Koyama, N. Ueno, and H. Saruwatari, “Amplitude matching for multizone sound field control,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Audio, Speech Language Process., vol. 31, pp. 656–669, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    V orl¨ander, Auralization

    M. V orl¨ander, Auralization. Springer, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Spatial active noise control based on kernel interpolation of sound field,

    S. Koyama, J. Brunnstr ¨om, H. Ito, N. Ueno, and H. Saruwatari, “Spatial active noise control based on kernel interpolation of sound field,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Audio, Speech, Language Process., vol. 29, pp. 3052– 3063, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Para- metric ambisonic encoding of arbitrary microphone arrays,

    L. McCormack, A. Politis, R. Gonzalez, T. Lokki, and V . Pulkki, “Para- metric ambisonic encoding of arbitrary microphone arrays,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Audio, Speech, Language Process., vol. 30, pp. 2062–2075, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Sound field recording using distributed microphones based on harmonic analysis of infinite order,

    N. Ueno, S. Koyama, and H. Saruwatari, “Sound field recording using distributed microphones based on harmonic analysis of infinite order,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett. , vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 135–139, 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    Theory and design of multizone soundfield reproduction using sparse methods,

    W. Jin and W. B. Kleijn, “Theory and design of multizone soundfield reproduction using sparse methods,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Audio, Speech Language Process., vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 2343–2355, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    Soundfield Reconstruction in Reverberant Environments Using Higher-order Microphones and Im- pulse Response Measurements,

    F. Borra, I. D. Gebru, and D. Markovic, “Soundfield Reconstruction in Reverberant Environments Using Higher-order Microphones and Im- pulse Response Measurements,” in Proc. 2019 IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech Signal Process. (ICASSP) , pp. 281–285, May 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Sparsity-based sound field separation in the spherical harmonics domain,

    M. Pezzoli, M. Cobos, F. Antonacci, and A. Sarti, “Sparsity-based sound field separation in the spherical harmonics domain,” in Proc. 2022 IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech Signal Process. (ICASSP) , pp. 1051–1055, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Sound field reconstruction in rooms: Inpainting meets super-resolution,

    F. Lluis, P. Martinez-Nuevo, M. Bo Møller, and S. Ewan Shepstone, “Sound field reconstruction in rooms: Inpainting meets super-resolution,” J. Acoust. Society Amer. , vol. 148, no. 2, pp. 649–659, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Generative models for sound field reconstruction,

    E. Fernandez-Grande, X. Karakonstantis, D. Caviedes-Nozal, and P. Ger- stoft, “Generative models for sound field reconstruction,” J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 153, pp. 1179–1190, 02 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Dictionary learning,

    I. To ˇsi´c and P. Frossard, “Dictionary learning,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 27–38, 2011

    2011

  16. [24]

    Deep image prior,

    D. Ulyanov, A. Vedaldi, and V . Lempitsky, “Deep image prior,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Computer Vision Pattern Recognition, pp. 9446–9454, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Deep prior-based audio inpainting using multi-resolution harmonic con- volutional neural networks,

    F. Miotello, M. Pezzoli, L. Comanducci, F. Antonacci, and A. Sarti, “Deep prior-based audio inpainting using multi-resolution harmonic con- volutional neural networks,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Audio, Speech Language Process., 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Physics-informed machine learning for sound field estimation,

    S. Koyama, J. G. Ribeiro, T. Nakamura, N. Ueno, and M. Pezzoli, “Physics-informed machine learning for sound field estimation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.14731, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Sound field estimation us- ing deep kernel learning regularized by the wave equation,

    D. Sundstr ¨om, S. Koyama, and A. Jakobsson, “Sound field estimation us- ing deep kernel learning regularized by the wave equation,” in 2024 18th International Workshop on Acoustic Signal Enhancement (IWAENC) , pp. 319–323, IEEE, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Sound field estimation based on physics-constrained kernel interpolation adapted to environment,

    J. G. Ribeiro, S. Koyama, R. Horiuchi, and H. Saruwatari, “Sound field estimation based on physics-constrained kernel interpolation adapted to environment,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    A physics-informed neural network-based approach for the spatial upsampling of spherical microphone arrays,

    F. Miotello, F. Terminiello, M. Pezzoli, A. Bernardini, F. Antonacci, and A. Sarti, “A physics-informed neural network-based approach for the spatial upsampling of spherical microphone arrays,” in 2024 18th International Workshop on Acoustic Signal Enhancement (IWAENC) , pp. 2...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Physics-informed neural network for volumetric sound field reconstruction of speech signals,

    M. Olivieri, X. Karakonstantis, M. Pezzoli, F. Antonacci, A. Sarti, and E. Fernandez-Grande, “Physics-informed neural network for volumetric sound field reconstruction of speech signals,” EURASIP Journal on Audio, Speech, and Music Processing , vol. 2024, no. 1, p. 42, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Reconstruction of directional sources using physics-informed neural networks,

    E. Morena, R. Malvermi, M. Pezzoli1, F. Antonacci, and A. Sarti, “Reconstruction of directional sources using physics-informed neural networks,” in Proc. INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congr. Conf., 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    A physics-constrained dictionary learning approach for compression of vibration signals,

    Y . Lu and Y . Wang, “A physics-constrained dictionary learning approach for compression of vibration signals,” Mechanical Syst. and Signal Process., vol. 153, p. 107434, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    Wave Physics Informed Dictionary Learning In One Dimension,

    H. V . Tetali, K. S. Alguri, and J. B. Harley, “Wave Physics Informed Dictionary Learning In One Dimension,” in Proc. 2019 IEEE 29th Int. Workshop Machine Learn. Signal Process. (MLSP) , (Pittsburgh, PA, USA), pp. 1–6, Oct. 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Reconstruction of the sound field in a room using compressive sensing,

    S. A. Verburg and E. Fernandez-Grande, “Reconstruction of the sound field in a room using compressive sensing,” J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. , vol. 143, pp. 3770–3779, June 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    K-svd: An algorithm for designing overcomplete dictionaries for sparse representation,

    M. Aharon, M. Elad, and A. Bruckstein, “K-svd: An algorithm for designing overcomplete dictionaries for sparse representation,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 54, no. 11, pp. 4311–4322, 2006

    2006

  28. [36]

    Online learning for matrix factorization and sparse coding,

    J. Mairal, F. Bach, J. Ponce, and G. Sapiro, “Online learning for matrix factorization and sparse coding,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 11, p. 19–60, mar 2010

    2010

  29. [37]

    From sparse solutions of systems of equations to sparse modeling of signals and images,

    A. M. Bruckstein, D. L. Donoho, and M. Elad, “From sparse solutions of systems of equations to sparse modeling of signals and images,” SIAM Review, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 34–81, 2009

    2009

  30. [38]

    E. G. Williams, Fourier Acoustics: Sound Radiation and Nearfield Acoustic Holography. Academic Press, 1999

    1999

  31. [39]

    CVXPY: A Python-embedded modeling language for convex optimization,

    S. Diamond and S. Boyd, “CVXPY: A Python-embedded modeling language for convex optimization,” J. Machine Learning Research , vol. 17, no. 83, pp. 1–5, 2016

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.