Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Latent Acoustic Mapping for Direction of Arrival Estimation: A Self-Supervised Approach

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A self-supervised model, LAM, learns high-resolution acoustic maps from microphone covariance matrices alone, and matches or beats supervised direction-of-arrival baselines on LOCATA and STARSS.

desk verdict A useful self-supervised acoustic mapping idea, but the 'superior' claim doesn't survive the recall numbers and the upsampler training is undefined. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07066 v1 pith:EQ5LUJM2 submitted 2025-07-08 cs.SD cs.AIeess.AS

Adrian S. Roman , Iran R. Roman , Juan P. Bello This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SDcs.AIeess.AS
keywords self-supervisedlearningdirectionofarrivalestimationacousticmappingsphericalmapsmicrophonearrayscross-spectralmatrixsoundeventlocalizationanddetection
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 introduces Latent Acoustic Mapping (LAM), a self-supervised model that turns the cross-spectral matrix of a microphone array (the spatial covariance of its channels) into a high-resolution spherical acoustic map of sound energy. The authors claim that LAM can be trained without any labeled data and still match or beat supervised localization systems: on LOCATA with 32 channels, LAM followed by k-means reaches 13.69 degrees localization error, slightly below DeepWave's 14.8, and with a small supervised readout it reaches 13.41. With only 4 microphone channels, an upsampling variant (UpLAM) still outperforms several supervised baselines on both LOCATA and STARSS. The significance is that self-supervised acoustic mapping could remove the annotation bottleneck in sound localization while keeping a physically interpretable spatial representation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the mapping from the array's cross-spectral matrix (CSM) $C\in\mathbb{C}^{M\times M}$ to a spherical acoustic map (SAM) $x\in\mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}^N$ on a Fibonacci tessellation of directions. The encoder applies a learnable back-projection $x^{(0)}=\left[\bar{B}\circ B\right]^H\mathrm{vec}(C)$ and four residual denoising convolutions; the decoder reconstructs the CSM as $\hat{C}=A\,\mathrm{diag}(x^{(4)})\,A^H$, where $A$ is the known steering matrix for the array. Training minimizes reconstruction error plus $\ell^1$ sparsity and total-variation smoothness on the map. A complex-valued deep back-projection network upsamples 4-channel CSMs to 32 channels so the same decoder geometry serves both array sizes. The learned SAM is the interpretable intermediate: its peaks indicate source directions, which is what allows k-means clustering or a supervised head to turn the map into a direction estimate.

What would settle it

Run the 4-channel pipeline with the upsampling module removed or randomly initialized, and check whether localization error stays near the reported 23.48 degrees; if it jumps toward the 61.83 degrees achieved by MUSIC on the same input, the upsampler, rather than the self-supervised loss, is doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

LAM's central claim is that a latent spherical acoustic map can be learned purely by asking a decoder to reconstruct the observed cross-spectral matrix from the map, using the array's known steering geometry as the decoding operator. Because the reconstruction target is the input covariance itself, no direction labels are needed. The learned map, once denoised, is a sparse spatial energy image whose peaks correspond to sound sources; those peaks can be read off by clustering or fed into a small supervised network. The paper reports that this scheme yields a localization error of 13.69 degrees (LAM with k-means, 32 channels) and 13.41 degrees (with a supervised GRU-plus-multi-head-attention readout) on LOCATA, beating DeepWave's 14.8, and that the 4-channel UpLAM variant reaches 18.65 degrees on STARSS, beating SELDnet's 23.3 and EINV2's 24.0. The authors further argue that the frozen LAM features, not the supervised head, carry the localization information, based on the experiment where enriching the validation set improves localization recall.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the module that converts 4-microphone covariance matrices into 32-microphone covariance matrices has been trained without secretly depending on labeled or paired low/high-resolution data; if it has, the 4-channel UpLAM results are not fully self-supervised.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Direction-of-arrival estimation no longer requires labeled recordings, because LAM's pretraining uses only the microphone covariance matrix and unlabeled multichannel audio.
  • Acoustic maps learned self-supervisedly can serve as features for a small supervised readout, so the same representation can be adapted to downstream tasks without retraining the mapping.
  • Low-resolution 4-channel arrays can be lifted to high-resolution geometry through the upsampling module, extending self-supervised mapping to common consumer microphone layouts.
  • Because the base model has only about 16,000 parameters per frequency band, localization could run in real time on edge devices.
  • The localization readout has a tunable detection threshold, giving an explicit trade-off between recall and angular accuracy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because LAM's pretraining objective depends only on the array's steering matrix, the same architecture should transfer to other array geometries, such as planar or linear arrays, by swapping in the appropriate matrix; the paper demonstrates only spherical and tetrahedral layouts.
  • A testable extension is to make the Fibonacci grid resolution trainable or adaptive, so the acoustic map could zoom around candidate sources instead of using a fixed spatial sampling.
  • The same reconstruction-based self-supervision could be applied to radio antenna arrays for direction finding, an application the paper names as future work.
  • The threshold analysis implies that a deployed LAM system could be tuned toward either recall or precision, and the domain-shift experiment suggests that frozen acoustic maps remain robust features even when a small supervised head overfits.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Latent Acoustic Mapping (LAM) model, an autoencoder that maps multichannel cross-spectral matrices (CSMs) to a latent spherical acoustic map via a learnable back-projection followed by denoising convolutions, and then reconstructs the input CSM through the array steering matrix in a self-supervised manner. A CDBPN upsampling module is introduced to handle 4-channel inputs, yielding the UpLAM variant. The authors evaluate two DoAE decoders on LOCATA and STARSS: an unsupervised weighted K-means clustering post-processor and a supervised GRU-MHSA head. They report that LAM achieves comparable or superior localization accuracy relative to supervised baselines such as MUSIC, DeepWave, SELDnet, and EINV2, and that LAM's acoustic maps serve as effective features for supervised DoAE.

Significance. If the claims hold, the contribution is significant: LAM offers a way to learn high-resolution acoustic maps from unlabeled multichannel recordings, removing the dependence on iterative-solver-derived labels that limits supervised acoustic imaging, and it does so with a very compact model (16K parameters). The paper's strengths include a clean self-supervised reconstruction objective, evaluation on standard benchmarks (LOCATA and STARSS), comparison with several relevant baselines, and a public code repository. The main reservations concern whether the empirical evidence supports the strength of the stated claims, particularly with respect to localization recall, missing error bars, and the unspecified training of the CDBPN upsampler. The core idea is defensible, but the experimental support needs strengthening before the superiority claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.5, Section 4.2] The training of the CDBPN upsampler is unspecified. The text states that 'we use a Complex-valued Deep Back Projection Network (CDBPN) capable of upsampling C ∈ C4×4 → C32×32 [8], [25]' and Section 4.2 says UpLAM 'integrates CBDPN upsampling,' but it never states whether CDBPN is trained jointly under the self-supervised reconstruction loss of Eq. (6), trained separately, or pretrained with paired 4ch and 32ch CSMs. If the upsampler was trained with paired 32ch targets, the 4ch UpLAM variant is not fully self-supervised, and the four-channel comparisons in Tables 1 and 2 would not provide a clean test of the self-supervision claim. Please specify the CDBPN training data, loss function, and whether any supervised or ground-truth CSM targets were used.
  2. [Section 4.3, Table 2, Figure 3] The headline claim of 'comparable or superior localization performance' is not supported when localization recall is taken into account. On STARSS dev-test-sony, UpLAM→GRU-MHSA achieves LE 18.65° but LR 57.6%, whereas SELDnet achieves LE 23.3° and LR 82.3%. Since LE is computed only over localized events, a model with substantially lower recall can report a favorable LE by omitting difficult events. The enriched-validation rows (†) still show UpLAM LR 64.6% versus SELDnet 66.4%, and the default-comparison SELDnet LR is 82.3%. The threshold trade-off in Figure 3 does not close this recall gap. Unless 'localization performance' is explicitly defined as LE alone or a combined metric is reported, the abstract's and conclusion's superiority claims need to be qualified.
  3. [Table 1, Section 6] The conclusion states that the fully self-supervised LAM with K-means 'surpasses' DeepWave on LOCATA, but LAM→K-means has LR 94.0% versus DeepWave's 99.2%, and its LE advantage is 13.69° versus 14.8°. The table caption notes that supervised outputs were averaged over three runs, but no variance or repeated pretraining is reported for LAM, so it is unclear whether the 1.1° LE difference is statistically meaningful. Moreover, no LAM→K-means row is reported for STARSS, so the cross-dataset claim of surpassing DeepWave is not supported. Please report repeated runs or error bars, and restrict 'surpassing' to settings where both LE and LR improve.
  4. [Section 4.3, Section 5] The K-means DoAE approach is presented as part of the self-supervised pipeline, but its hyperparameters (K, the number of maximal-intensity pixels, and the 15° merging rule) were 'selected through cross-validation on the validation data.' Since validation data carries DoA ground truth, the K-means post-processor is label-tuned, which contradicts the characterization of LAM→K-means as 'completely self-supervised' in Section 5. Please report sensitivity to these choices or fix them without using label information, or revise the claim accordingly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.4] There is a typo: 'evaluarte' should be 'evaluate'.
  2. [Section 3.5, Section 4.2] The acronym is inconsistently spelled as both 'CDBPN' and 'CBDPN'; please make it consistent and expand the acronym on first use. It would also help to clarify how the deep back-projection network of [25] is adapted to complex-valued CSMs.
  3. [Section 5] The phrase 'UpLAM can outperforms supervised DoAE methods' is ungrammatical; it should be 'can outperform'.
  4. [Section 4.1, Table 2] The dataset name is spelled inconsistently as 'RSoANU' and 'RSOANU'; please standardize.
  5. [Section 3.1, Eq. (2)] The steering matrix in Eq. (2) uses a single wavelength λ0, but the method operates on nine frequency bands from 1.5 to 4.5 kHz. Please clarify whether a single λ0 is used for all bands or whether the steering matrix is frequency-dependent.
  6. [Figure 3] The caption for Figure 3 does not fully describe the axes and the meaning of the solid versus dotted curves; since the threshold experiment is used to explain the LR gap, a more complete caption would aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No exhibited circularity: LAM's self-supervised objective is a regularized inverse problem over measured CSMs, and downstream DoAE is scored against held-out labels; the main caveat is an underspecified CDBPN training procedure for the 4-ch UpLAM variant.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is not circular by construction. The encoder maps the measured CSM C (Eq. 1) to a latent SAM via back-projection (Eq. 3), and the decoder uses the known steering matrix A to reconstruct C (Eq. 4). Training minimizes MSE(C, C_hat) plus sparsity and TV terms (Eq. 6); this is a regularized inverse problem, not a fit of the downstream DoA labels. The latent x(4) is defined as the minimizer of reconstruction error, but the DoAE evaluation is external: K-means hyperparameters are chosen on validation labels, and the GRU-MHSA head is trained on held-out labeled data (Sections 4.2-4.3). Thus no equation reduces to another by construction. Self-citations [8], [27], [22] supply baselines, a simulator, and a tessellation; they do not by themselves force the reported DoAE numbers. The one load-bearing ambiguity is Section 3.5: 'we use a Complex-valued Deep Back Projection Network (CDBPN) capable of upsampling C ∈ C4×4 → C32×32 [8], [25]' with no statement of whether CDBPN is trained jointly under Eq. 6 or pretrained with paired data. If CDBPN required supervised 4ch/32ch pairs, the 'no labels used in this stage' claim (Section 4.2) would be incomplete for UpLAM, and the 4ch results would be less clean. This is a missing specification and a correctness risk for the 4-ch variant, but it is not an exhibited equivalence between inputs and outputs; the 32-ch LAM results are self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the compressed-sensing factorization of the CSM, the sufficiency of a sparse latent representation, and the CDBPN upsampling behavior. The free parameters are mostly architectural and regularizer choices, plus the K-means post-processing hyperparameters tuned on validation data. No new physical entities are postulated beyond a learned latent representation.

free parameters (4)
  • gamma (regularization weight) = 1e-4
    Sets the strength of l1 and total variation penalties in Eq. 6; chosen by hand, not fit to data.
  • K-means hyperparameters = K=3, 18 pixels, 15 degrees
    Selected via cross-validation on validation data in Section 4.3, and directly affect reported DoAE accuracy.
  • frequency band selection = 9 bands, 1.5 to 4.5 kHz
    A design choice stated in Section 4.2; no ablation justifies it.
  • denoising architecture = 4 steps, kernels 3, 5, 7, 9
    Architecture choices inherited from DeepWave and image denoising literature, not tuned systematically.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption CSM factorization C = A diag(x) A^H with known steering matrix A
    Used in Eq. 4 and Eq. 5; assumes the array geometry is known and the source model is narrowband.
  • domain assumption Sparse latent x encodes source directions
    The model assumes that a sparse, nonnegative energy map over the Fibonacci grid can explain the measured CSM; this is a compressed-sensing assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper CDBPN effectively maps 4ch CSM to 32ch CSM
    Section 3.5 introduces the upsampling module but does not state whether it is trained jointly under the self-supervised loss or pretrained with supervision, a key unverified premise for the 4ch results.
invented entities (1)
  • Latent acoustic map x(4)
    purpose: A learned sparse energy representation over directions, used as an interpretable intermediate for DoAE.
    The paper validates this representation only through downstream DoAE accuracy, which is the paper's own evaluation; no external independent evidence is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Latent Acoustic Mapping for Direction of Arrival Estimation: A Self-Supervised Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EQ5LUJM2

@misc{pith2026250707066,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Latent Acoustic Mapping for Direction of Arrival Estimation: A Self-Supervised Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EQ5LUJM2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07066}
}
read the original abstract

Acoustic mapping techniques have long been used in spatial audio processing for direction of arrival estimation (DoAE). Traditional beamforming methods for acoustic mapping, while interpretable, often rely on iterative solvers that can be computationally intensive and sensitive to acoustic variability. On the other hand, recent supervised deep learning approaches offer feedforward speed and robustness but require large labeled datasets and lack interpretability. Despite their strengths, both methods struggle to consistently generalize across diverse acoustic setups and array configurations, limiting their broader applicability. We introduce the Latent Acoustic Mapping (LAM) model, a self-supervised framework that bridges the interpretability of traditional methods with the adaptability and efficiency of deep learning methods. LAM generates high-resolution acoustic maps, adapts to varying acoustic conditions, and operates efficiently across different microphone arrays. We assess its robustness on DoAE using the LOCATA and STARSS benchmarks. LAM achieves comparable or superior localization performance to existing supervised methods. Additionally, we show that LAM's acoustic maps can serve as effective features for supervised models, further enhancing DoAE accuracy and underscoring its potential to advance adaptive, high-performance sound localization systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    Robust doa estimation from deep acoustic imaging,

    A. S. Roman, I. R. Roman, and J. P. Bello, “Robust doa estimation from deep acoustic imaging,” in ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1321–1325

    work page 2024

  2. [25]

    Deep back-projection networks for super-resolution,

    M. Haris, G. Shakhnarovich, and N. Ukita, “Deep back-projection networks for super-resolution,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [1]

    A deconvolution approach for the mapping of acoustic sources (damas) determined from phased microphone arrays,

    T. F. Brooks and W. M. Humphreys, “A deconvolution approach for the mapping of acoustic sources (damas) determined from phased microphone arrays,” Journal of sound and vibration , vol. 294, no. 4-5, pp. 856–879, 2006

    work page 2006

  4. [2]

    Deepwave: a recurrent neural-network for real-time acoustic imaging,

    M. Simeoni, S. Kashani, P. Hurley, and M. Vetterli, “Deepwave: a recurrent neural-network for real-time acoustic imaging,” Advances In Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 32, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [3]

    Optimum signal processing of three-dimensional arrays operating on gaussian signals and noise,

    F. Bryn, “Optimum signal processing of three-dimensional arrays operating on gaussian signals and noise,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 289–297, 1962

    work page 1962

  6. [4]

    Multiple emitter location and signal parameter estimation,

    R. Schmidt, “Multiple emitter location and signal parameter estimation,” IEEE transactions on antennas and propagation , vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 276–280, 1986

    work page 1986

  7. [5]

    Two decades of array signal processing research: the parametric approach,

    H. Krim and M. Viberg, “Two decades of array signal processing research: the parametric approach,” IEEE signal processing magazine , vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 67–94, 1996

    work page 1996

  8. [6]

    Theoretical analysis of the damas algorithm and efficient implementation of the covariance matrix fitting method for large-scale problems,

    G. Chardon, J. Picheral, and F. Ollivier, “Theoretical analysis of the damas algorithm and efficient implementation of the covariance matrix fitting method for large-scale problems,” Journal of Sound and Vibration , vol. 508, p. 116208, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 40 references
  1. [7]

    Sparsity constrained deconvolution approaches for acoustic source mapping,

    T. Yardibi, J. Li, P. Stoica, and L. N. Cattafesta, “Sparsity constrained deconvolution approaches for acoustic source mapping,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , vol. 123, no. 5, pp. 2631–2642, 2008

    2008

  2. [9]

    Beyond a gaussian denoiser: Residual learning of deep cnn for image denoising,

    K. Zhang, W. Zuo, Y . Chen, D. Meng, and L. Zhang, “Beyond a gaussian denoiser: Residual learning of deep cnn for image denoising,” IEEE transactions on image processing , vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 3142–3155, 2017

    2017

  3. [10]

    Methods for image denoising using convolutional neural network: a review,

    A. E. Ilesanmi and T. O. Ilesanmi, “Methods for image denoising using convolutional neural network: a review,” Complex & Intelligent Systems , vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 2179–2198, 2021

    2021

  4. [11]

    A fast iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm for linear inverse problems,

    A. Beck and M. Teboulle, “A fast iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm for linear inverse problems,” SIAM journal on imaging sciences, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 183–202, 2009

    2009

  5. [12]

    Learning fast approximations of sparse coding,

    K. Gregor and Y . LeCun, “Learning fast approximations of sparse coding,” in Proceedings of the 27th international conference on international conference on machine learning , 2010, pp. 399–406

    2010

  6. [13]

    Localization, detection and tracking of multiple moving sound sources with a convolutional recurrent neural network,

    S. Adavanne, A. Politis, and T. Virtanen, “Localization, detection and tracking of multiple moving sound sources with a convolutional recurrent neural network,” in Acoustic Scenes and Events 2019 Workshop (DCASE2019), 2019, p. 20

    2019

  7. [14]

    A track-wise ensemble event independent network for polyphonic sound event localization and detection,

    J. Hu, Y . Cao, M. Wu, Q. Kong, F. Yang, M. D. Plumbley, and J. Yang, “A track-wise ensemble event independent network for polyphonic sound event localization and detection,” in ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)....

    2022

  8. [15]

    STARSS23: An audio-visual dataset of spatial recordings of real scenes with spatiotemporal annotations of sound events,

    K. Shimada, A. Politis, P. Sudarsanam, D. A. Krause, K. Uchida, S. Adavanne, A. Hakala, Y . Koyama, N. Takahashi, S. Takahashi, T. Virtanen, and Y . Mitsufuji, “STARSS23: An audio-visual dataset of spatial recordings of real scenes with spatiotemporal annotations of sound even...

    2023

  9. [16]

    Sound source distance estimation in diverse and dynamic acoustic conditions,

    S. S. Kushwaha, I. R. Roman, M. Fuentes, and J. P. Bello, “Sound source distance estimation in diverse and dynamic acoustic conditions,” in 2023 IEEE Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics (WASPAA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  10. [17]

    A survey of sound source localization with deep learning methods,

    P.-A. Grumiaux, S. Kiti ´c, L. Girin, and A. Gu ´erin, “A survey of sound source localization with deep learning methods,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , vol. 152, no. 1, pp. 107–151, 2022

    2022

  11. [18]

    Overview and evaluation of sound event localization and detection in dcase 2019,

    A. Politis, A. Mesaros, S. Adavanne, T. Heittola, and T. Virtanen, “Overview and evaluation of sound event localization and detection in dcase 2019,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, vol. 29, pp. 684–698, 2020

    2019

  12. [19]

    D. H. Johnson and D. E. Dudgeon, Array signal processing: concepts and techniques. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1992

    1992

  13. [20]

    Signal processing tools for radio astronomy,

    A.-J. van der Veen and S. J. Wijnholds, “Signal processing tools for radio astronomy,” in Handbook of Signal Processing Systems . Springer, 2013, pp. 421–463

    2013

  14. [21]

    Hadamard, khatri-rao, kronecker and other matrix products,

    S. Liu, G. Trenkler et al., “Hadamard, khatri-rao, kronecker and other matrix products,” International Journal of Information and Systems Sciences, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 160–177, 2008

    2008

  15. [22]

    Analyzing the effect of equal-angle spatial discretization on sound event localization and detection,

    S. S. Kushwaha, I. R. Roman, and J. P. Bello, “Analyzing the effect of equal-angle spatial discretization on sound event localization and detection,” in Proceedings of the 7th Detection and Classification of Acoustic Scenes and Events 2022 Workshop (DCASE2022) , 2022

    2022

  16. [23]

    An introduction to total variation for image analysis,

    A. Chambolle, V . Caselles, D. Cremers, M. Novaga, T. Pock et al., “An introduction to total variation for image analysis,” Theoretical foundations and numerical methods for sparse recovery , vol. 9, no. 263-340, p. 227, 2010

    2010

  17. [24]

    Em32 eigenmike microphone array release notes (v17. 0),

    M. Acoustics, “Em32 eigenmike microphone array release notes (v17. 0),” 25 Summit Ave, Summit, NJ 07901, USA , 2013

    2013

  18. [26]

    Eigenscape: A database of spatial acoustic scene recordings,

    M. C. Green and D. Murphy, “Eigenscape: A database of spatial acoustic scene recordings,” Applied sciences, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Spatial scaper: a library to simulate and augment soundscapes for sound event localization and detection in realistic rooms,

    I. R. Roman, C. Ick, S. Ding, A. S. Roman, B. McFee, and J. P. Bello, “Spatial scaper: a library to simulate and augment soundscapes for sound event localization and detection in realistic rooms,” in ICASSP 2024- 2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Sign...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Metu sparg eigenmike em32 acoustic impulse response dataset v0. 1.0,

    O. Olgun and H. Hacihabiboglu, “Metu sparg eigenmike em32 acoustic impulse response dataset v0. 1.0,” Graduate School Inform., Middle East Tech. Univ., Ankara, Turkey, Tech. Rep, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Dataset of spatial room impulse responses in a variable acoustics room for six degrees-of-freedom rendering and analysis,

    T. McKenzie, L. McCormack, and C. Hold, “Dataset of spatial room impulse responses in a variable acoustics room for six degrees-of-freedom rendering and analysis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.11882 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Data set: Eigenmike-drirs, kemar 45ba-brirs, rirs and 360 ◦ pictures captured at five positions of a small conference room,

    C. Schneiderwind, A. Neidhardt, F. Klein, and S. Fichna, “Data set: Eigenmike-drirs, kemar 45ba-brirs, rirs and 360 ◦ pictures captured at five positions of a small conference room,” in 45th Annual Conference on Acoustics (DAGA), Rostock, Germany , 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Room impulse response dataset of a recording studio with variable wall paneling measured using a 32-channel spherical microphone array and a b-format microphone array,

    G. Chesworth, A. Bastine, and T. Abhayapala, “Room impulse response dataset of a recording studio with variable wall paneling measured using a 32-channel spherical microphone array and a b-format microphone array,” Applied Sciences, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    A dataset of higher-order ambisonic room impulse responses and 3d models measured in a room with varying furniture,

    G. G ¨otz, S. J. Schlecht, and V . Pulkki, “A dataset of higher-order ambisonic room impulse responses and 3d models measured in a room with varying furniture,” in 2021 Immersive and 3D Audio: from Architecture to Automotive (I3DA) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–8

    2021

  25. [33]

    The ryerson audio-visual database of emotional speech and song (ravdess): A dynamic, multimodal set of facial and vocal expressions in north american english,

    S. R. Livingstone and F. A. Russo, “The ryerson audio-visual database of emotional speech and song (ravdess): A dynamic, multimodal set of facial and vocal expressions in north american english,” PloS one , vol. 13, no. 5, p. e0196391, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Fsd50k: an open dataset of human-labeled sound events,

    E. Fonseca, X. Favory, J. Pons, F. Font, and X. Serra, “Fsd50k: an open dataset of human-labeled sound events,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing , vol. 30, pp. 829–852, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Fma: A dataset for music analysis

    K. Benzi, M. Defferrard, P. Vandergheynst, and X. Bresson, “Fma: A dataset for music analysis.”

  28. [36]

    The locata challenge data corpus for acoustic source localization and tracking,

    H. W. L ¨ollmann, C. Evers, A. Schmidt, H. Mellmann, H. Barfuss, P. A. Naylor, and W. Kellermann, “The locata challenge data corpus for acoustic source localization and tracking,” in 2018 IEEE 10th Sensor array and multichannel signal processing workshop (SAM) . IEEE, 2018, pp...

    2018

  29. [37]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. P. Kingma, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Empirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling,

    J. Chung, C. Gulcehre, K. Cho, and Y . Bengio, “Empirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling,” in NIPS 2014 Workshop on Deep Learning, December 2014 , 2014

    2014

  31. [39]

    Assessment of self- attention on learned features for sound event localization and detection,

    P. A. Sudarsanam, A. Politis, and K. Drosos, “Assessment of self- attention on learned features for sound event localization and detection,” in Detection and Classication of Acoustic Scenes and Events , 2021, pp. 100–104

    2021

  32. [40]

    Multi-accdoa: Localizing and detecting overlapping sounds from the same class with auxiliary duplicating permutation invariant training,

    K. Shimada, Y . Koyama, S. Takahashi, N. Takahashi, E. Tsunoo, and Y . Mitsufuji, “Multi-accdoa: Localizing and detecting overlapping sounds from the same class with auxiliary duplicating permutation invariant training,” in ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Aco...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.