Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 36 references

SHAMaNS: Sound Localization with Hybrid Alpha-Stable Spatial Measure and Neural Steerer

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 SHAMaNS claims that an alpha-stable spatial measure fed by neural-interpolated steering vectors outperforms SRP-PHAT and MUSIC for two to six concurrent sources, using about ten percent of the measured steering vectors.

desk verdict Promising system, but the advertised noise-robustness theory does not survive contact with the gradient. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18954 v1 pith:UDLM6CKB submitted 2025-06-23 cs.SD cs.AIcs.LGeess.AS

Diego Di Carlo (RIKEN AIP) , Mathieu Fontaine (LTCI , IP Paris) , Aditya Arie Nugraha (RIKEN AIP) , Yoshiaki Bando (RIKEN AIP) , Kazuyoshi Yoshii This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SDcs.AIcs.LGeess.AS
keywords soundsourcelocalizationalpha-stabledistributionsspatialmeasuresteeringvectorinterpolationNeuralSteererphysics-informeddeeplearningmulti-sourcemicrophonearrays
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 proposes SHAMaNS, a sound source localization method that fuses an $\alpha$-stable statistical model of the multichannel mixture with a coordinate-based neural network, Neural Steerer, that interpolates measured steering vectors to directions where no measurement was taken. The paper argues the fusion is theoretically coherent because the interpolator's reconstruction error behaves like impulsive, heavy-tailed noise and is absorbed by the $\alpha$-stable noise term. It reports that SHAMaNS outperforms SRP-PHAT and MUSIC when locating two to six concurrent sources, keeps accuracy above 55 percent for fewer than five sources, and reaches oracle-level performance using only about 10 percent of the measured steering vectors for the neural interpolator. If right, the method would make high-resolution multi-source localization practical on small wearable arrays with sparse acoustic calibration.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $\alpha$-stable spatial measure $\Upsilon = [\Upsilon_1,\dots,\Upsilon_L] \in \mathbb{R}_+^L$, a non-negative vector over candidate source positions whose nonzero entries mark active sources; $\alpha$-stable distributions are heavy-tailed laws with characteristic exponent $\alpha \in (0,2]$ that yield a unique spatial measure when $\alpha<2$. The measure is estimated through the Lévy exponent relation $\hat{I}_f \approx \Psi_f \Upsilon$, where $\Psi_f$ contains the normalized inner products $|\tilde{a}_{lf}^H \tilde{a}_{l'f}|^\alpha$ between steering vectors, stacked over frequencies as $\hat{I}\approx \Psi\Upsilon$, and recovered by minimizing the $\beta$-divergence with a sparsity penalty, producing the multiplicative update of Eq. (5). The second piece is Neural Steerer, a coordinate-based network that outputs spherical-harmonic expansion coefficients $c_{\nu\mu,mf}$ for each microphone, direction, and frequency, so a few hundred measured steering vectors can be upsampled to the 60 candidate directions. Observations are normalized as $\tilde{x}_{ft}=x_{ft}/\|x_{ft}\|_p^p$ with $p<\alpha$, which the paper argues leaves the spatial measure unchanged up to a direction-independent scale while taming outliers.

What would settle it

Compute the gradient of the $\beta$-divergence between $\hat{I}_f$ and $\Psi_f \Upsilon + C_\alpha \mathbf{1}_L$ with respect to $\Upsilon$; if the constant does not cancel, run a synthetic test with known $\Upsilon$, elliptically contoured noise, and increasing noise level, and check whether SHAMaNS's estimated spatial measure degrades as the noise grows. If accuracy is independent of the noise level, the absorption claim survives; if it drops, the update in Eq. (5) is not justified by the stated model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the $\alpha$-stable spatial measure remains a valid localization statistic even when the steering vectors entering it come from a neural interpolator rather than from measurements at every candidate direction. The paper extends the mixing model with an additive noise term $n_{ft}$ modeled by an elliptically contoured isotropic $\alpha$-stable distribution, and claims that the constant noise contribution $C_\alpha \mathbf{1}_L$ vanishes from the multiplicative update for the spatial measure, so the noiseless update applies and the Neural Steerer's frequency-local interpolation error is handled implicitly. The experimental claim is that with 32 measured steering vectors (about 10 percent of the available 1020) the interpolated steering vectors match the localization accuracy obtained with oracle measured steering vectors, and that SHAMaNS beats SRP-PHAT and MUSIC for two to six simultaneous sources.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that when the $\alpha$-stable model is extended with additive noise, the noise term $C_\alpha \mathbf{1}_L$ disappears from the multiplicative update, leaving the noiseless update valid without separately modeling the interpolator's error; if that term actually survives in the gradient, the stated derivation no longer supports the algorithm.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With roughly 32 randomly sampled measured steering vectors, SHAMaNS matches the localization accuracy obtained with the full set of 1020 oracle steering vectors.
  • For two to six concurrent sources at 20 dB SNR and low-to-moderate reverberation, SHAMaNS reports higher accuracy than SRP-PHAT and MUSIC, with accuracy above 55 percent for fewer than five sources.
  • The $\alpha$-stable model treats neural steering-vector interpolation error as impulsive noise, so the pipeline needs no separate uncertainty calibration of the interpolator.
  • All methods degrade when algebraic steering vectors are used, meaning the practical gain of SHAMaNS depends on the quality of the interpolated steering vectors, and the paper argues a correct estimate of $\alpha$ is what makes the noise absorption work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same absorption mechanism should transfer to other learned steering-vector or transfer-function models whose residuals are concentrated in certain frequencies, such as HRTF upsamplers, even without the Neural Steerer architecture.
  • Because the normalized observations keep the spatial measure unchanged up to scale, the pipeline is a natural candidate for arrays with unknown per-microphone gain calibration; that is a testable stress case the paper does not run.
  • A direct extension would estimate $\alpha$ jointly with the spatial measure inside the optimization rather than fixing it in advance, which would show whether the robustness comes from the heavy-tailed model or mainly from the interpolation quality.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SHAMaNS, a sound source localization method that combines an alpha-stable spatial measure model with a physics-informed neural network, Neural Steerer, for interpolating measured steering vectors. The authors extend the alpha-stable mixing model with an additive isotropic alpha-stable noise term, claiming that the noise term vanishes from the multiplicative update for the spatial measure, thereby making the algorithm automatically robust to interpolation errors. The method is evaluated on simulated multi-source scenarios based on the SPEAR dataset, comparing against MUSIC and SRP-PHAT with oracle, algebraic, and Neural Steerer interpolated steering vectors. The reported results indicate improved localization accuracy for multiple concurrent sources and near-oracle performance with a small number of measured steering vectors.

Significance. If the central claims hold, SHAMaNS would be a practically useful contribution: it targets a realistic setup where steering vectors are measured at sparse directions, and it releases code and uses a publicly available dataset, which supports reproducibility. The idea of modeling Neural Steerer reconstruction error as impulsive noise is conceptually appealing, and the empirical setting is relevant to augmented-reality and hearable applications. However, the main theoretical justification in Section III-A is not supported by the derivation as written, and the evaluation lacks the natural ablations that would isolate the contribution of each component. The paper is therefore significant in scope but currently requires substantial revision before its claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-A, Eqs. (9)-(10) and Eq. (5)] The derivation that the additive noise term C_alpha 1_L vanishes from the multiplicative update is incorrect. For the model I_f = Psi_f Upsilon + C_alpha 1_L, the beta-divergence objective depends on Upsilon through the sum Psi Upsilon + C_alpha 1_L, and the gradient with respect to Upsilon contains this sum explicitly. For example, for beta=1 the gradient is Psi^T(1_L - I ⊘ (Psi Upsilon + C_alpha 1_L)), and for beta=2 it is Psi^T(Psi Upsilon + C_alpha 1_L - I). The constant does not cancel in either case. Equation (5) follows only if the noise term is absent or if the observed data are replaced by I' = I - C_alpha 1_L, which is not stated. Consequently, the claim that a correct estimate of alpha makes the algorithm implicitly robust to the Neural Steerer reconstruction error is unsupported by the derivation. This is a load-bearing issue because the paper's theoretical justification for the hybrid model rests on this step.
  2. [Section IV-B, Figs. 4 and 5] The empirical evaluation omits the two most natural baselines for the proposed fusion: the alpha-stable SSL method without Neural Steerer (reference [25]) and Neural Steerer without the alpha-stable spatial measure (reference [29]). Since the paper's contribution is precisely the fusion of these two components, the reported comparisons against MUSIC and SRP-PHAT do not by themselves demonstrate that the hybrid combination is beneficial. The authors should include these ablations, or at least provide a clear explanation of why they are not applicable, before claiming that SHAMaNS outperforms state-of-the-art methods.
  3. [Section IV-B, Figs. 4 and 5] The main multi-source accuracy and AUC results are reported without error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests, even though the experiments use only 30 random scenes per condition. The text states that SHAMaNS outperforms baselines for 2 to 6 sources and that accuracy exceeds 55% for N<5, but without variance estimates it is not possible to assess whether these differences are meaningful. The authors should provide per-condition standard deviations or otherwise quantify the uncertainty of the reported curves.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption states "RT60=0.123 ms," which appears to be a unit error; the text elsewhere uses seconds, and 0.123 ms would be an unrealistically short reverberation time. Please correct the unit, likely to seconds or milliseconds as appropriate.
  2. [Section IV-A] The statement that "oracle SSL performance could be obtained with only 10% of the initial measurements" is imprecise: with NSV=128 out of 1020 measured steering vectors, the fraction is about 12.5%, not 10%. Please clarify the exact number of measurements used to support this claim.
  3. [Eq. (3)] The estimator in Eq. (3) is written with an unusual combination of absolute value and logarithm after the empirical mean; please verify that the formula matches the standard estimator from [25], and add a reference or a derivation for this exact expression.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: empirical results benchmarked externally; only minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

I traced the claimed derivation chain. The core empirical claim—SHAMaNS outperforms SRP-PHAT and MUSIC on multi-source localization with limited measured steering vectors—is evaluated on the external SPEAR dataset against standard baselines (MUSIC, SRP-PHAT) using VCTK speech utterances and randomly generated acoustic scenes. Hyperparameters (p=1, beta=1, lambda=1e-3, 500 iterations) are fixed and are not fitted to the test labels or to the reported ground-truth DOAs. The alpha-stable spatial-measure formulation and the multiplicative update in Eq. (5) are imported from the authors' prior work [19,25], and the Neural Steerer is imported from the authors' prior publication [29]; these are external, published, code-bearing components rather than results derived inside this paper from the target quantities. No 'prediction' is a renamed fit: the estimated spatial measure is compared against independent ground-truth source positions, and the NS interpolation is trained on measured steering vectors, not on the localization labels. The only notable concern is in Section III-A, where the paper asserts that the additive noise term C_alpha 1_L vanishes from the gradient and that Eq. (10) reduces to the same update as Eq. (5). That claim is mathematically unsupported—the constant remains in the denominator for beta=1 and additively for beta=2—but this is a derivation/correctness gap, not a circularity: the algorithm still stands or falls on independent empirical evidence. The self-citations are normal prior-work citations and do not force the outcome by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation adds a noise term that is claimed not to affect the update. This is the main unproved step. The other assumptions are standard for the alpha-stable SSL line of work or are standard modeling choices.

free parameters (5)
  • lambda (sparsity penalty) = 1e-3
    Set by hand in Section IV-A; controls sparsity of the spatial measure and is not justified by any criterion.
  • p (normalization norm order) = 1
    Chosen in Section III-B with only the constraint p < alpha; value is arbitrary within that range.
  • beta (beta-divergence parameter) = 1
    Selected in Section IV-A; corresponds to KL divergence, but no ablation justifies this choice.
  • alpha (characteristic exponent) = estimated per mixture via [36]
    The method's behavior depends strongly on alpha, which is estimated from the observed mixture rather than fixed by theory.
  • NSV (number of measured steering vectors for training NS) = 32 for main results
    The paper reports results for NSV in {8,16,32,64,128}; NS-32 is used for the headline multiple-source comparison in Fig. 5.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Observed multichannel signals are a weighted sum of alpha-stable source images plus elliptically contoured alpha-stable noise.
    Adopted in Section III-A, Eq. (8)-(9); not validated against real recordings.
  • standard math For alpha < 2, the spatial measure of the mixture is unique and can be recovered from the Levy exponent.
    Cited from [25], [30]; standard alpha-stable theory.
  • ad hoc to paper The additive noise constant C_alpha 1_L vanishes from the multiplicative update for Upsilon.
    Stated in Section III-A after Eq. (10); the constant remains in the denominator of the beta-divergence gradient, so the update in Eq. (5) does not follow.
  • standard math Normalizing by the p-norm with p < alpha leaves the spatial measure unchanged up to a scale factor.
    Based on the covariation formula [30, p. 87], invoked in Section III-B.
  • domain assumption Neural Steerer reconstruction error is impulsive and can be absorbed into the alpha-stable noise component.
    Assumed in Section III-C; no direct evidence provided for this error model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SHAMaNS: Sound Localization with Hybrid Alpha-Stable Spatial Measure and Neural Steerer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UDLM6CKB

@misc{pith2026250618954,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SHAMaNS: Sound Localization with Hybrid Alpha-Stable Spatial Measure and Neural Steerer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UDLM6CKB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18954}
}
abstract

This paper describes a sound source localization (SSL) technique that combines an $\alpha$-stable model for the observed signal with a neural network-based approach for modeling steering vectors. Specifically, a physics-informed neural network, referred to as Neural Steerer, is used to interpolate measured steering vectors (SVs) on a fixed microphone array. This allows for a more robust estimation of the so-called $\alpha$-stable spatial measure, which represents the most plausible direction of arrival (DOA) of a target signal. As an $\alpha$-stable model for the non-Gaussian case ($\alpha$ $\in$ (0, 2)) theoretically defines a unique spatial measure, we choose to leverage it to account for residual reconstruction error of the Neural Steerer in the downstream tasks. The objective scores indicate that our proposed technique outperforms state-of-the-art methods in the case of multiple sound sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18954 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic pipeline of the proposed algorithm. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Area under the ROC curve for the number of source classifications [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Accuracy (success for angular error less than 15 degrees) for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    Neural steerer: Novel steering vector synthesis with a causal neural field over frequency and direction,

    D. Di Carlo, A. A. Nugraha, M. Fontaine, Y . Bando, and K. Yoshii, “Neural steerer: Novel steering vector synthesis with a causal neural field over frequency and direction,” in Proc. IEEE ICASSPW , 2024, pp. 740– 744

    work page 2024

  2. [25]

    Scalable source localization with multichannel α-stable distributions,

    M. Fontaine, C. Vanwynsberghe, A. Liutkus, and R. Badeau, “Scalable source localization with multichannel α-stable distributions,” in Proc. EUSIPCO, 2017, pp. 11–15

    work page 2017

  3. [1]

    Microphone array processing for augmented listening,

    R. M. Corey, “Microphone array processing for augmented listening,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2019

    2019

  4. [2]

    Augmented/mixed reality audio for hearables: Sensing, control, and rendering,

    R. Gupta, J. He, R. Ranjan, W.-S. Gan, F. Klein, C. Schneiderwind, A. Neidhardt, K. Brandenburg, and V . V ¨alim¨aki, “Augmented/mixed reality audio for hearables: Sensing, control, and rendering,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 63–89, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [3]

    ConvLSTM-based sound source localization in a manufacturing work- place,

    R. Jalayer, M. Jalayer, A. Mor, C. Orsenigo, and C. Vercellis, “ConvLSTM-based sound source localization in a manufacturing work- place,” Comput. Ind. Eng. , vol. 192, p. 110213, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [4]

    SLAM-based joint calibration of multiple asynchronous microphone arrays and sound source localization,

    J. Wang, Y . He, D. Su, K. Itoyama, K. Nakadai, J. Wu, S. Huang, Y . Li, and H. Kong, “SLAM-based joint calibration of multiple asynchronous microphone arrays and sound source localization,” IEEE Trans. Robot. , vol. 40, pp. 4024–4044, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [5]

    Acoustic simultaneous localization and mapping for autonomous driving,

    A. Madan and L. Li, “Acoustic simultaneous localization and mapping for autonomous driving,” in Proc. IEEE ICCSI , 2024, pp. 1–6

    work page 2024

  8. [6]

    Microphone array for speaker localization and identification in shared autonomous vehicles,

    I. Marques, J. Sousa, B. S ´a, D. Costa, P. Sousa, S. Pereira, A. Santos, C. Lima, N. Hammerschmidt, S. Pinto, and T. Gomes, “Microphone array for speaker localization and identification in shared autonomous vehicles,” Electronics, vol. 11, no. 5, p. 766, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 36 references
  1. [7]

    Multiple emitter location and signal parameter estimation,

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

    1986

  2. [8]

    Robust local- ization in reverberant rooms,

    J. H. DiBiase, H. F. Silverman, and M. S. Brandstein, “Robust local- ization in reverberant rooms,” in Microphone Arrays: Signal Processing Techniques and Applications, M. Brandstein and D. Ward, Eds. Springer, 2001, pp. 157–180

    2001

  3. [9]

    Incoherent frequency fusion for broadband steered response power algorithms in noisy environments,

    D. Salvati, C. Drioli, and G. L. Foresti, “Incoherent frequency fusion for broadband steered response power algorithms in noisy environments,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett. , vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 581–585, 2014

    2014

  4. [10]

    Intelligent sound source localization for dynamic environments,

    K. Nakamura, K. Nakadai, F. Asano, Y . Hasegawa, and H. Tsujino, “Intelligent sound source localization for dynamic environments,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ IROS, 2009, pp. 664–669

    2009

  5. [11]

    A modified SRP-PHAT functional for robust real-time sound source localization with scalable spatial sam- pling,

    M. Cobos, A. Marti, and J. J. Lopez, “A modified SRP-PHAT functional for robust real-time sound source localization with scalable spatial sam- pling,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett. , vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 71–74, 2010

    2010

  6. [12]

    Differentiable tracking-based training of deep learning sound source localizers,

    S. Adavanne, A. Politis, and T. Virtanen, “Differentiable tracking-based training of deep learning sound source localizers,” inProc. IEEE WASPAA, 2021, pp. 211–215

    2021

  7. [13]

    A combination of various neural networks for sound event localization and detection,

    D. Rho, S. Lee, J. Park, T. Kim, J. Chang, and J. Ko, “A combination of various neural networks for sound event localization and detection,” DCASE Challenge, Tech. Rep., 2021

    2021

  8. [14]

    Learning deep direct-path relative transfer function for binaural sound source localization,

    B. Yang, H. Liu, and X. Li, “Learning deep direct-path relative transfer function for binaural sound source localization,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Audio, Speech, Language Process., vol. 29, pp. 3491–3503, 2021

    2021

  9. [15]

    Directional ASR: A new paradigm for E2E multi-speaker speech recognition with source localization,

    A. S. Subramanian, C. Weng, S. Watanabe, M. Yu, Y . Xu, S.-X. Zhang, and D. Yu, “Directional ASR: A new paradigm for E2E multi-speaker speech recognition with source localization,” in Proc. IEEE ICASSP , 2021, pp. 8433–8437

    2021

  10. [16]

    An improved event-independent network for polyphonic sound event localization and detection,

    Y . Cao, T. Iqbal, Q. Kong, F. An, W. Wang, and M. D. Plumbley, “An improved event-independent network for polyphonic sound event localization and detection,” in Proc. IEEE ICASSP , 2021, pp. 885–889

    2021

  11. [17]

    PILOT: Introducing transformers for probabilistic sound event localization,

    C. Schymura, B. B ¨onninghoff, T. Ochiai, M. Delcroix, K. Kinoshita, T. Nakatani, S. Araki, and D. Kolossa, “PILOT: Introducing transformers for probabilistic sound event localization,” in Proc. INTERSPEECH , 2021, pp. 2117–2121

    2021

  12. [18]

    Resilient multiple choice learning: A learned scoring scheme with ap- plication to audio scene analysis,

    V . Letzelter, M. Fontaine, M. Chen, P. P ´erez, S. Essid, and G. Richard, “Resilient multiple choice learning: A learned scoring scheme with ap- plication to audio scene analysis,” in Proc. NeurIPS, vol. 36, 2023, pp. 6001–6013

    2023

  13. [19]

    Sketching for nearfield acoustic imaging of heavy-tailed sources,

    M. Fontaine, C. Vanwynsberghe, A. Liutkus, and R. Badeau, “Sketching for nearfield acoustic imaging of heavy-tailed sources,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Latent Variable Anal. Signal Separation , 2017, pp. 80–88

    2017

  14. [20]

    Permutation-free CGMM: Complex gaussian mixture model with inverse wishart mixture model based spatial prior for permutation-free source separation and source counting,

    J. Azcarreta, N. Ito, S. Araki, and T. Nakatani, “Permutation-free CGMM: Complex gaussian mixture model with inverse wishart mixture model based spatial prior for permutation-free source separation and source counting,” in Proc. IEEE ICASSP , 2018, pp. 51–55

    2018

  15. [21]

    Spatial location priors for gaussian model based reverberant audio source separation,

    N. Q. Duong, E. Vincent, and R. Gribonval, “Spatial location priors for gaussian model based reverberant audio source separation,” EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process., vol. 2013, p. 149, 2013

    2013

  16. [22]

    Elliptically contoured alpha-stable representation for MUSIC- based sound source localization,

    M. Fontaine, D. Di Carlo, K. Sekiguchi, A. A. Nugraha, Y . Bando, and K. Yoshii, “Elliptically contoured alpha-stable representation for MUSIC- based sound source localization,” in Proc. EUSIPCO, 2022, pp. 26–30

    2022

  17. [23]

    Joint audio source localization and separation with distributed micro- phone arrays based on spatially-regularized multichannel NMF,

    Y . Sumura, D. Di Carlo, A. A. Nugraha, Y . Bando, and K. Yoshii, “Joint audio source localization and separation with distributed micro- phone arrays based on spatially-regularized multichannel NMF,” in Proc. IWAENC, 2024, pp. 145–149

    2024

  18. [24]

    Sound source localization using joint bayesian estimation with a hierarchical noise model,

    F. Asano, H. Asoh, and K. Nakadai, “Sound source localization using joint bayesian estimation with a hierarchical noise model,” IEEE Audio, Speech, Language Process., vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 1953–1965, 2013

    1953

  19. [26]

    A review on head-related transfer function generation for spatial audio,

    V . Bruschi, L. Grossi, N. A. Dourou, A. Quattrini, A. Vancheri, T. Leidi, and S. Cecchi, “A review on head-related transfer function generation for spatial audio,” Applied Sciences, vol. 14, no. 23, p. 11242, 2024

    2024

  20. [27]

    Physics-informed machine learning for sound field estimation: Funda- mentals, state of the art, and challenges,

    S. Koyama, J. G. Ribeiro, T. Nakamura, N. Ueno, and M. Pezzoli, “Physics-informed machine learning for sound field estimation: Funda- mentals, state of the art, and challenges,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag. , vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 60–71, 2025

    2025

  21. [28]

    Manikas, Differential geometry in array processing

    A. Manikas, Differential geometry in array processing. Imperial College Press, 2004

    2004

  22. [30]

    Samorodnitsky and M

    G. Samorodnitsky and M. S. Taqqu, Stable Non-Gaussian Random Processes: Stochastic Models with Infinite Variance . Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1994

    1994

  23. [31]

    EasyCom: An augmented reality dataset to support algorithms for easy communication in noisy environments,

    J. Donley, V . Tourbabin, J.-S. Lee, M. Broyles, H. Jiang, J. Shen, M. Pan- tic, V . K. Ithapu, and R. Mehra, “EasyCom: An augmented reality dataset to support algorithms for easy communication in noisy environments,” arXiv e-print, pp. 1–9, 2021, arXiv:2107.04174v2

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Estimation of the optimal spherical harmonics order for the interpolation of head-related transfer functions sampled on sparse irregular grids,

    D. Bau, J. M. Arend, and C. P ¨orschmann, “Estimation of the optimal spherical harmonics order for the interpolation of head-related transfer functions sampled on sparse irregular grids,” Frontiers in Signal Pro- cessing, vol. 2, p. 884541, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Sound field estimation around a rigid sphere with physics-informed neural network,

    X. Chen, F. Ma, A. Bastine, P. Samarasinghe, and H. Sun, “Sound field estimation around a rigid sphere with physics-informed neural network,” in Proc. APSIPA ASC, 2023, pp. 1984–1989

    2023

  26. [34]

    An introduction to the speech enhancement for augmented reality (SPEAR) challenge,

    P. Guiraud, S. Hafezi, P. A. Naylor, A. H. Moore, J. Donley, V . Tourbabin, and T. Lunner, “An introduction to the speech enhancement for augmented reality (SPEAR) challenge,” in Proc. IWAENC, 2022, pp. 1–5

    2022

  27. [35]

    CSTR VCTK corpus: English multi-speaker corpus for CSTR voice cloning toolkit,

    J. Yamagishi, C. Veaux, and K. MacDonald, “CSTR VCTK corpus: English multi-speaker corpus for CSTR voice cloning toolkit,” 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Alpha-stable autoregressive fast multichannel nonnegative matrix fac- torization for joint speech enhancement and dereverberation

    M. Fontaine, K. Sekiguchi, A. A. Nugraha, Y . Bando, and K. Yoshii, “Alpha-stable autoregressive fast multichannel nonnegative matrix fac- torization for joint speech enhancement and dereverberation.” in Proc. INTERSPEECH, 2021, pp. 661–665

    2021

Pith tools

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