Boundary-Informed Sound Field Reconstruction

Andreas Jakobsson; David Sundstr\"om; Filip Elvander

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 34 references

Boundary-Informed Sound Field Reconstruction

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes a Bayesian estimator that turns a coarse point cloud of room boundaries into a prior for plane-wave coefficients, and claims this boundary-informed prior improves sound-field reconstruction even with only a few hundred…

desk verdict Clean derivation of a boundary-informed Gaussian prior that deserves a serious referee, but the numerical comparison is under-specified: Tikhonov and Lasso baselines need explicit tuning before the headline claim is established. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13279 v1 pith:UPYADTIH submitted 2025-06-16 eess.AS cs.SD

David Sundström , Filip Elvander , Andreas Jakobsson This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.AScs.SD

keywords soundfieldreconstructionBayesianestimationimpedanceboundaryconditionspointcloudpriorHerglotzwavefunctionsspatialaudiohyperparameteroptimizationroomacoustics

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

The paper sets out to show that a room's sound field can be reconstructed more accurately by feeding a statistical estimator a rough point cloud of the room's boundaries, rather than ignoring the geometry as standard regularized methods do. The proposed linear Bayesian estimator builds a prior for plane-wave coefficients from the impedance boundary condition evaluated at the point-cloud locations, and it tunes the impedance and variance hyperparameters automatically. Numerical simulations with 100 microphones and a 1,000-plane-wave basis show the boundary-informed prior lowers normalized mean-squared error compared with nearest-neighbour, Tikhonov, and Lasso baselines. The claimed benefit appears with only a few hundred boundary points and survives boundary-position errors up to about 1 dm.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the boundary-constraint matrix pair $(\Psi, \tilde{\Phi})$ sampled at the point-cloud locations, combined with a shared complex impedance $\beta$. It enters through the prior covariance $\Sigma_\alpha = \sigma_\alpha^2 (I + \mu(\beta\Psi+\tilde{\Phi})^H(\beta\Psi+\tilde{\Phi}))^{-1}$, which softly enforces the impedance boundary condition rather than imposing it as a hard constraint. Setting $\mu=0$ recovers the Tikhonov estimator, so any improvement is attributable to the boundary term. The marginal-likelihood objective and its Wirtinger gradients, given in the appendix, let the solver jointly tune the noise variance, signal variance, boundary-prior strength, and impedance.

What would settle it

In a room with one heavily absorbing wall and three hard walls, run the same 100-microphone, 300 Hz experiment from Section IV with a point cloud of the true geometry; if the boundary-informed estimator does not beat Tikhonov because the spatially varying absorption is not represented in the prior, the single-impedance assumption is the breaking point.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a partial, imprecise boundary model is enough to regularize the ill-posed sound-field reconstruction problem. At a fixed frequency, the field is represented as a superposition of plane waves $\alpha$, measured as $y = \Phi\alpha + \varepsilon$, and the paper assigns $\alpha$ a Gaussian prior with covariance $\Sigma_\alpha = \sigma_\alpha^2 \left(I + \mu(\beta\Psi + \tilde{\Phi})^H(\beta\Psi + \tilde{\Phi})\right)^{-1}$, where $\beta\Psi + \tilde{\Phi}$ encodes the impedance boundary condition $\beta\, n(r)\cdot\nabla u(r) + i k u(r)=0$ at the boundary points. Using this prior in the maximum-a-posteriori estimate (or the equivalent Gaussian-process prediction) is what produces the reported gains; the hyperparameters $\sigma^2$, $\sigma_\alpha^2$, $\mu$, and $\beta$ are jointly estimated by maximizing the marginal likelihood. The paper further claims the approach is robust to coarse, uncertain boundary data, specifically a few hundred point-cloud samples and up to 1 dm position error.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes all boundary points share a single complex impedance value and a locally reacting surface, so a real wall that absorbs differently at different positions or angles violates the prior.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

With 100 microphones and 1,000 plane-wave basis functions in a simulated room, the proposed estimator lowers NMSE by several dB compared with Tikhonov and Lasso baselines across the tested frequencies.
The reconstruction error falls sharply as boundary points are added, saturating near 1000 points, so a few hundred wall samples already capture most of the benefit.
The gain over baselines persists when boundary positions are perturbed up to 1 dm and when microphone positions are also uncertain, so precise geometric calibration is not required.
Because the Tikhonov estimator is recovered by setting $\mu=0$, the improvement is attributable entirely to the boundary information entering the prior covariance.
The joint marginal-likelihood optimization automatically selects the impedance and variance hyperparameters, so no manual tuning of the boundary term is required.

Reading between the lines

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

An extension the authors leave implicit: the same prior could be tested with per-patch impedance values instead of one global $\beta$; if per-patch $\beta$ gives further gains, real rooms with mixed surfaces become tractable.
The 1 dm robustness result suggests consumer photogrammetry point clouds are already precise enough for the prior, which would let spatial audio systems be calibrated from a quick phone scan rather than a full room survey.
The formulation is basis-agnostic: any basis satisfying the Helmholtz equation could carry the same boundary-informed covariance, so the method could be combined with sparse or dictionary bases when the field is directional.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know about this one. First, the central idea is genuinely neat: instead of needing full room geometry, the authors derive a Gaussian prior on plane-wave coefficients from impedance boundary conditions at a few hundred point-cloud points, with uniform complex impedance and boundary weight treated as hyperparameters. Second, the numerical evidence is under-specified enough that the abstract's claim of 'significantly enhances' is plausible but not established.

What's actually new: previous work uses either full simulation or generic GP regularization; this specific construction—Σα = σ²α (I + µ(βΨ+Φ̃)ᴴ(βΨ+Φ̃))⁻¹—does not appear in the cited literature, and the joint empirical Bayes optimization of noise, signal, µ, and β is a natural and useful extension. The derivation in Section III is internally consistent, and the appendix gives explicit gradients. Credit where due: the simulation deliberately makes the evaluation unfavorable by using reflection coefficient 0.95, which does not exactly match the impedance model for oblique incidence, so the uniform-β assumption is partially stress-tested. The citation pattern looks reasonable, covering the relevant GP and impedance estimation work.

Soft spots, in order of importance. The baseline comparison is not fully specified. Tikhonov is defined as µ=0 in (16), but the paper does not state how σ² and σ²α are chosen; if they are not also estimated from the marginal likelihood, the proposed method's advantage may come from the extra hyperparameter optimization rather than from the boundary information. The Lasso λ is never stated. There are no error bars on the N=10 Monte Carlo runs in Figures 2–5, so apparent differences of a few dB may not be significant. The evaluation is limited to one shoebox geometry with simulated data; no real point clouds, no code or data released. The uniform-β and plane-wave model are limitations, but the authors are upfront that this is preliminary work.

Overall, the math looks solid, the idea is worth building on, and the paper deserves a serious referee. The missing tuning details and error bars need to be addressed before the comparative claim is taken at face value.

Recommendation: send to peer review with a request to clarify baseline tuning, add error bars, and ideally release code/data.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Bayesian estimator for reconstructing a frequency-domain sound field in an enclosed space from microphone measurements and partial knowledge of the room boundary given as a point cloud. The sound field is represented by a Herglotz/plane-wave expansion, and a Gaussian prior for the expansion coefficients is derived from impedance boundary conditions, with covariance depending on the matrix (beta Psi + Phi_tilde). The hyperparameters, including noise variance, signal variance, prior weight, and the complex specific impedance beta, are estimated by minimizing the marginal likelihood using gradient-based optimization. Numerical experiments with ISM-simulated shoebox rooms compare the proposed estimator with Nearest-neighbor, Tikhonov, and Lasso baselines, reporting NMSE versus the number of boundary points, boundary-position perturbation, microphone-position perturbation, and frequency. The central claim is that the boundary-informed prior significantly improves reconstruction, even with only a few hundred boundary points or with boundary-point errors up to 1 dm.

Significance. If the numerical evidence is reliable, this is a useful contribution: it provides a principled way to inject coarse and uncertain geometry into sound-field reconstruction, with all hyperparameters estimated from the measured data, and it gives a concrete target for calibration accuracy when using consumer-grade point-cloud sensors. The derivation in Section III is clear and internally consistent, and the evaluation is deliberately unfavorable to the proposed model because the ISM simulations use a reflection coefficient of 0.95 rather than exactly satisfying the impedance boundary condition. The robustness experiments in Figures 3 and 4 address a realistic source of model mismatch. The main weaknesses are that the baseline comparisons are incompletely specified and that the Monte Carlo results are reported without uncertainty, so the strength of the central comparative claim cannot yet be fully assessed.

major comments (3)

[Section IV, Tikhonov and Lasso baselines] The comparison that supports the central claim is incomplete. The Tikhonov estimator is described only as 'constructed by setting mu = 0 in (16)', with no statement of whether sigma^2 and sigma_alpha^2 for this baseline are estimated by the same marginal-likelihood procedure as the proposed method or are fixed. The Lasso estimate is introduced as adding lambda times the L1 norm of alpha to (7), but the value of lambda, or any grid search or cross-validation used to select it, is never reported. If the baselines use fixed or poorly chosen regularization while the proposed method optimizes the hyperparameters in (18), the reported gain could be caused by the empirical Bayes hyperparameter optimization rather than by the boundary information encoded in the prior. Please specify the baseline tuning procedures and, ideally, report results over a range of regularization strengths.
[Figures 2-5 and Eq. (20)] The NMSE in Eq. (20) is averaged over J validation points and N=10 Monte-Carlo simulations, but Figures 2-5 show only the mean curves, with no error bars, confidence intervals, or per-run spread. With N=10 and a single room configuration, the differences between the proposed method and Tikhonov/Lasso could lie within run-to-run variability, particularly in the regimes where the curves are close in Figures 3-5. Please add error bars or shaded intervals and state which random quantities vary across the N runs (noise, boundary perturbations, microphone perturbations).
[Section III-B, Eq. (18)] The marginal-likelihood objective in (18) is non-convex, but the paper does not report the initialization of the conjugate-gradient optimization, the use of restarts, or any sensitivity analysis. In addition, the reparametrization beta = e^eta with complex eta does not enforce a physical constraint such as a positive real part for the specific impedance, so the optimizer may select non-physical boundary parameters. Because the reported results depend on the quality of the local optimum reached, please report the initialization and add multiple restarts or a sensitivity study.

minor comments (6)

[Section III-B, Eq. (18)] The notation 'J(theta) = arg min ...' is an abuse of notation; please define J(theta) as the objective after reparameterization and state the minimization separately.
[Section IV, experimental setup] The numerical setup omits several quantities needed for reproducibility: room dimensions, source position and source signals, the exact sampling procedure for the microphones and validation points, and the generation of boundary and microphone perturbations. Please provide these details or make the code available.
[Figures 2-5] The paper does not state whether the plotted NMSE values are in dB; Eq. (20) defines a linear average. Please clarify the vertical-axis scaling.
[Figure 2] At B=0, the covariance in (16) reduces to the Tikhonov covariance with mu=0; please confirm that the Proposed and Tikhonov curves coincide at that point, or explain any discrepancy.
[Throughout] There are minor typographical issues, including 'distribtuion' in Section III and 'significance value' in Section IV (should be 'significant value'), and 'Pola k-Ribi`ere' should be 'Polak-Ribiere'.
[Section IV] The Nearest baseline is very weak; adding a non-boundary-informed kernel or Gaussian-process baseline without boundary information would make the comparison more informative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the boundary-informed prior is derived from the physical impedance boundary condition and validated on independently simulated held-out points.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is from the impedance boundary condition (5) to the covariance prior (16), via the linear constraint (14), with no step in which the target reconstruction or the reported NMSE is used in defining the prior. The unknown hyperparameters (σ², σ²α, μ, β) are jointly estimated from the microphone data y through the marginal likelihood (17)–(18), a disclosed empirical Bayes procedure; this is a standard model-selection step, not a hidden fit of the validation output. The evaluation in Section IV uses an independent image-source simulation with validation positions held out from the microphone array, so the reported gains relative to Tikhonov and Lasso are not forced by construction. The only author self-citation, [11], appears in the introductory survey of regularizer approaches and is not load-bearing. The stated limitation—the assumption of a single specific impedance β—is a modeling assumption that is deliberately mismatched in the experiment (reflection coefficient 0.95), which strengthens rather than undermines the independence of the test. Concerns about the unspecified tuning of the Tikhonov and Lasso baselines bear on experimental fairness or correctness, not on circularity, and no load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger lists the four fitted hyperparameters and the physical and algorithmic assumptions the central claim depends on. No new physical entities are introduced; the unknowns are standard prior parameters and an impedance value estimated from the data.

free parameters (4)

noise variance sigma^2 = e^a = estimated from microphone data via (18), value not reported
Optimized by maximizing the marginal likelihood in Section III-B; not measured externally.
signal variance sigma_alpha^2 = e^b = estimated from microphone data via (18), value not reported
Controls the overall scale of the prior on plane-wave coefficients; optimized alongside the other hyperparameters.
boundary prior weight mu = e^d = estimated from microphone data via (18), value not reported
Sets how strongly the impedance boundary condition is enforced; optimized from the data.
specific impedance beta = e^eta = estimated from microphone data via (18), value not reported
A single complex impedance shared by all boundary points; it is a fitted boundary parameter, not a known physical input.

assumptions (6)

standard math The sound field satisfies the homogeneous Helmholtz equation in the source-free region Omega.
Section II, Eq. (3); used to justify the plane-wave Herglotz representation.
standard math Every free-field solution can be arbitrarily well approximated by Herglotz wave functions.
Section II, Eq. (4), citing [26]; this makes the plane-wave basis a valid representation.
domain assumption The boundary is locally reacting with angle-independent specific impedance, and all boundary points share one complex impedance beta.
Section III-A: 'we assume all boundary points to share the same specific impedance, i.e., beta(r) = beta'. If false, the prior is misspecified.
domain assumption Measurement noise is independent circularly symmetric Gaussian with variance sigma^2.
Section II, Eq. (2); this is the likelihood model for the Bayesian estimator.
ad hoc to paper The nonconvex marginal likelihood optimization in (18) converges to a useful solution.
Section III-B uses a conjugate-gradient solver; no convergence proof or initialization strategy is reported.
domain assumption ISM simulation with reflection coefficient 0.95 approximates the impedance boundary condition model.
Section IV says ISM satisfies the impedance condition only as beta approaches infinity; the authors set reflection coefficients to 0.95, creating a model mismatch they describe as less favorable to the proposed method.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Boundary-Informed Sound Field Reconstruction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UPYADTIH

@misc{pith2026250613279,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Boundary-Informed Sound Field Reconstruction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UPYADTIH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13279}
}

read the original abstract

We consider the problem of reconstructing the sound field in a room using prior information of the boundary geometry, represented as a point cloud. In general, when no boundary information is available, an accurate sound field reconstruction over a large spatial region and at high frequencies requires numerous microphone measurements. On the other hand, if all geometrical and acoustical aspects of the boundaries are known, the sound field could, in theory, be simulated without any measurements. In this work, we address the intermediate case, where only partial or uncertain boundary information is available. This setting is similar to one studied in virtual reality applications, where the goal is to create a perceptually convincing audio experience. In this work, we focus on spatial sound control applications, which in contrast require an accurate sound field reconstruction. Therefore, we formulate the problem within a linear Bayesian framework, incorporating a boundary-informed prior derived from impedance boundary conditions. The formulation allows for joint optimization of the unknown hyperparameters, including the noise and signal variances and the impedance boundary conditions. Using numerical experiments, we show that incorporating the boundary-informed prior significantly enhances the reconstruction, notably even when only a few hundreds of boundary points are available or when the boundary positions are calibrated with an uncertainty up to 1 dm.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13279 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Illustration of the NMSE as a function of the number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Illustration of the NMSE of the reconstruction for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

[1]

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

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

work page 2021
[2]

Spatial multizone soundﬁe ld reproduc- tion: Theory and design,

Y . J. Wu and T. D. Abhayapala, “Spatial multizone soundﬁe ld reproduc- tion: Theory and design,” IEEE Trans. Audio, Speech, Lang. Process. , vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1711–1720, 2010

work page 2010
[3]

Gaussian processes for so und ﬁeld reconstruction,

D. Caviedes-Nozal, N.A.B. Riis, F.M. Heuchel, J. Brunsk og, P . Ger- stoft, and E. Fernandez-Grande, “Gaussian processes for so und ﬁeld reconstruction,” J. Acoust. Soc. Amer . , vol. 149, no. 2, pp. 1107–1119, 2021

work page 2021
[4]

Kernel learning for sound ﬁeld estimation with l1 and l2 reg ulariza- tions,

R. Horiuchi, S. Koyama, J.G.C. Ribeiro, N. Ueno, and H. Sa ruwatari, “Kernel learning for sound ﬁeld estimation with l1 and l2 reg ulariza- tions,” in IEEE Int. W orkshop Appl. Signal Process. Audio Acoust. , New Paltz, NY , USA, 2021, pp. 261–265

work page 2021
[5]

Room impulse response interpolation using a sp arse spatio- temporal representation of the sound ﬁeld,

N. Antonello, E. De Sena, M. Moonen, P . A. Naylor, and T. V a n Wa- terschoot, “Room impulse response interpolation using a sp arse spatio- temporal representation of the sound ﬁeld,” IEEE Trans. Audio, Speech, Lang. Process. , vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 1929–1941, 2017

work page 1929
[6]

Williams, F ourier acoustics: sound radiation and nearﬁeld acous- tical holography, Academic press, 1999

E.G. Williams, F ourier acoustics: sound radiation and nearﬁeld acous- tical holography, Academic press, 1999

work page 1999
[7]

A. N. Tikhonov and V . Y . Arsenin, Solutions of ill-posed problems , V . H. Winston & Sons, Washington, D.C.: John Wiley & Sons, New Y o rk, 1977

work page 1977
[8]

Sound ﬁeld record ing using distributed microphones based on harmonic analysis of inﬁn ite order,

N. Ueno, S. Koyama, and H. Saruwatari, “Sound ﬁeld record ing using distributed microphones based on harmonic analysis of inﬁn ite order,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett. , vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 135–139, 2017

work page 2017

Show all 34 references

[9]

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

S. A. V erburg and E. Fernandez-Grande, “Reconstruction of the sound ﬁeld in a room using compressive sensing,” J. Acoust. Soc. Amer . , vol. 143, no. 6, pp. 3770–3779, 2018

2018
[10]

A zero-shot physics-infor med dic- tionary learning approach for sound ﬁeld reconstruction,

S. Damiano, F. Miotello, M. Pezzoli, A. Bernardini, F. A ntonacci, A. Sarti, and T. v. Waterschoot, “A zero-shot physics-infor med dic- tionary learning approach for sound ﬁeld reconstruction,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech, Sig. Process. , Hyderabad, India, 4 2025

2025
[11]

Sound ﬁeld estimation using deep kernel learning regularized by the wave equation ,

D. Sundstr¨ om, S. Koyama, and A. Jakobsson, “Sound ﬁeld estimation using deep kernel learning regularized by the wave equation ,” in Int. W orkshop Acoust. Signal Enhancement , Aalborg, Denmark, 09 2024, IEEE, pp. 319–323

2024
[12]

Digital holographic r econstruction of sources with arbitrarily shaped surfaces,

W.A. V eronesi and J.D. Maynard, “Digital holographic r econstruction of sources with arbitrarily shaped surfaces,” J. Acoust. Soc. Amer ., vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 588–598, 1989

1989
[13]

On the in situ estimation of surface acoustic impedance in interiors of ar bitrary shape by acoustical inverse methods,

G. P . Nava, Y . Y asuda, Y . Sato, and S. Sakamoto, “On the in situ estimation of surface acoustic impedance in interiors of ar bitrary shape by acoustical inverse methods,” Acoust. Sci. Tech. , vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 100–109, 2009

2009
[14]

Identiﬁcation of surface acoustic impedances in a reverbe rant room using the fdtd method,

N. Antonello, T. van Waterschoot, M. Moonen, and P . A. Na ylor, “Identiﬁcation of surface acoustic impedances in a reverbe rant room using the fdtd method,” in Int. W orkshop Acoust. Signal Enhancement , Juan-les-Pins, France, 09 2014, pp. 114–118

2014
[15]

Bayesian approac h for the in situ estimation of the acoustic boundary admittance,

J. M. Schmid, M. Eser, and S. Marburg, “Bayesian approac h for the in situ estimation of the acoustic boundary admittance,” J. of Theoretical and Computational Acoust. , vol. 31, no. 04, 2023

2023
[16]

Novel-view acoustic synthesis from 3d reconstructed rooms,

B. Ahn, K. Y ang, B. Hamilton, J. Sheaffer, A. Ranjan, M. S arabia, O. Tuzel, and J.H.R. Chang, “Novel-view acoustic synthesis from 3d reconstructed rooms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15130 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[17]

Joint estimati on of sound source location and boundary impedance with physics-drive n cosparse regularization,

N. Bertin, S. Kiti´ c, and R. Gribonval, “Joint estimati on of sound source location and boundary impedance with physics-drive n cosparse regularization,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process. , Shanghai, China, 03 2016, pp. 6340–6344

2016
[18]

Grounding image matc hing in 3d with mast3r,

V . Leroy, Y . Cabon, and J. Revaud, “Grounding image matc hing in 3d with mast3r,” in European Conf. on Computer Vision , Milan, Italy, 09 2024, Springer, pp. 71–91

2024
[19]

Be everywhere-hear e verything (bee): Audio scene reconstruction by sparse audio-visual s amples,

M. Chen, K. Su, and E. Shlizerman, “Be everywhere-hear e verything (bee): Audio scene reconstruction by sparse audio-visual s amples,” in IEEE International Conf. on Computer Vision , Paris, France, 10 2023, pp. 7853–7862

2023
[20]

Av-nerf : Learning neural ﬁelds for real-world audio-visual scene synthesis,

S. Liang, C. Huang, Y . Tian, A. Kumar, and C. Xu, “Av-nerf : Learning neural ﬁelds for real-world audio-visual scene synthesis, ” Adv. in Neural Inf. Process. Syst. , vol. 36, 12 2023

2023
[21]

Neural a coustic context ﬁeld: Rendering realistic room impulse response wi th neural ﬁelds,

S. Liang, C. Huang, Y . Tian, A. Kumar, and C. Xu, “Neural a coustic context ﬁeld: Rendering realistic room impulse response wi th neural ﬁelds,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15977 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[22]

Few- shot audio- visual learning of environment acoustics,

S. Majumder, C. Chen, Z. Al-Halah, and K. Grauman, “Few- shot audio- visual learning of environment acoustics,” Adv. in Neural Inf. Process. Syst., vol. 35, pp. 2522–2536, 12 2022

2022
[23]

Kuttruff, Room acoustics , CRC Press, 2016

H. Kuttruff, Room acoustics , CRC Press, 2016

2016
[24]

V ariable spa n trade-off ﬁlter for sound zone control with kernel interpolation weig hting,

J. Brunnstr¨ om, S. Koyama, and M. Moonen, “V ariable spa n trade-off ﬁlter for sound zone control with kernel interpolation weig hting,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process. , Singapore, 05 2022, pp. 1071–1075

2022
[25]

D. L. Colton, R. Kress, and R. Kress, Inverse acoustic and electromag- netic scattering theory , vol. 93, Springer, 1998

1998
[26]

Directionally w eighted wave ﬁeld estimation exploiting prior information on source dir ection,

N. Ueno, S. Koyama, and H. Saruwatari, “Directionally w eighted wave ﬁeld estimation exploiting prior information on source dir ection,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 69, pp. 2383–2395, 2021

2021
[27]

C. E. Rasmussen and C. K. I. Williams, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning, The MIT Press, 11 2005

2005
[28]

Multi- frequency sparse bayesian learning for robust matched ﬁeld processing,

K. L. Gemba, S. Nannuru, P . Gerstoft, and W. S. Hodgkiss, “Multi- frequency sparse bayesian learning for robust matched ﬁeld processing,” J. Acoust. Soc. Amer . , vol. 141, no. 5, pp. 3411–3420, 2017

2017
[29]

A bayesian approach to sound source reconstr uction: Optimal basis, regularization, and focusing,

J Antoni, “A bayesian approach to sound source reconstr uction: Optimal basis, regularization, and focusing,” J. Acoust. Soc. Amer ., vol. 131, no. 4, pp. 2873–2890, 2012

2012
[30]

Note sur la convergence de m´ et hodes de directions conjugu´ ees,

E. Polak and G. Ribiere, “Note sur la convergence de m´ et hodes de directions conjugu´ ees,”Revue franc ¸aise d’informatique et de recherche op´ erationnelle. S´ erie rouge, vol. 3, no. 16, pp. 35–43, 1969

1969
[31]

Gaussian processes fo r machine learning (gpml) toolbox,

C. E. Rasmussen and H. Nickisch, “Gaussian processes fo r machine learning (gpml) toolbox,” The Jour . of Mach. Learning Research , vol. 11, pp. 3011–3015, 2010

2010
[32]

Room impulse response generator,

E.A.P . Habets, “Room impulse response generator,” Technische Univer- siteit Eindhoven, Tech. Rep , vol. 2, no. 2.4, pp. 1, 2006

2006
[33]

Measurement of areas on a sphere using ﬁbonac ci and latitude–longitude lattices,

´A. Gonz´ alez, “Measurement of areas on a sphere using ﬁbonac ci and latitude–longitude lattices,” Mathematical geosciences, vol. 42, pp. 49– 64, 2010

2010
[34]

Adaptive ﬁlter theory,

Simon Haykin, “Adaptive ﬁlter theory,” Prentice Hall, vol. 2, 2002

2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

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

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

work page 2021

[2] [2]

Spatial multizone soundﬁe ld reproduc- tion: Theory and design,

Y . J. Wu and T. D. Abhayapala, “Spatial multizone soundﬁe ld reproduc- tion: Theory and design,” IEEE Trans. Audio, Speech, Lang. Process. , vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1711–1720, 2010

work page 2010

[3] [3]

Gaussian processes for so und ﬁeld reconstruction,

D. Caviedes-Nozal, N.A.B. Riis, F.M. Heuchel, J. Brunsk og, P . Ger- stoft, and E. Fernandez-Grande, “Gaussian processes for so und ﬁeld reconstruction,” J. Acoust. Soc. Amer . , vol. 149, no. 2, pp. 1107–1119, 2021

work page 2021

[4] [4]

Kernel learning for sound ﬁeld estimation with l1 and l2 reg ulariza- tions,

R. Horiuchi, S. Koyama, J.G.C. Ribeiro, N. Ueno, and H. Sa ruwatari, “Kernel learning for sound ﬁeld estimation with l1 and l2 reg ulariza- tions,” in IEEE Int. W orkshop Appl. Signal Process. Audio Acoust. , New Paltz, NY , USA, 2021, pp. 261–265

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Room impulse response interpolation using a sp arse spatio- temporal representation of the sound ﬁeld,

N. Antonello, E. De Sena, M. Moonen, P . A. Naylor, and T. V a n Wa- terschoot, “Room impulse response interpolation using a sp arse spatio- temporal representation of the sound ﬁeld,” IEEE Trans. Audio, Speech, Lang. Process. , vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 1929–1941, 2017

work page 1929

[6] [6]

Williams, F ourier acoustics: sound radiation and nearﬁeld acous- tical holography, Academic press, 1999

E.G. Williams, F ourier acoustics: sound radiation and nearﬁeld acous- tical holography, Academic press, 1999

work page 1999

[7] [7]

A. N. Tikhonov and V . Y . Arsenin, Solutions of ill-posed problems , V . H. Winston & Sons, Washington, D.C.: John Wiley & Sons, New Y o rk, 1977

work page 1977

[8] [8]

Sound ﬁeld record ing using distributed microphones based on harmonic analysis of inﬁn ite order,

N. Ueno, S. Koyama, and H. Saruwatari, “Sound ﬁeld record ing using distributed microphones based on harmonic analysis of inﬁn ite order,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett. , vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 135–139, 2017

work page 2017