Pith. sign in

REVIEW

A Comparison of Five Multiple Instance Learning Pooling Functions for Sound Event Detection with Weak Labeling

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1810.09050 v3 pith:4U5Y4LI6 submitted 2018-10-22 cs.SD eess.AS

A Comparison of Five Multiple Instance Learning Pooling Functions for Sound Event Detection with Weak Labeling

classification cs.SD eess.AS
keywords poolingaudiofunctionfivelocalizationperformancesoundattention
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Sound event detection (SED) entails two subtasks: recognizing what types of sound events are present in an audio stream (audio tagging), and pinpointing their onset and offset times (localization). In the popular multiple instance learning (MIL) framework for SED with weak labeling, an important component is the pooling function. This paper compares five types of pooling functions both theoretically and experimentally, with special focus on their performance of localization. Although the attention pooling function is currently receiving the most attention, we find the linear softmax pooling function to perform the best among the five. Using this pooling function, we build a neural network called TALNet. It is the first system to reach state-of-the-art audio tagging performance on Audio Set, while exhibiting strong localization performance on the DCASE 2017 challenge at the same time.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.