Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Improved Feature Extraction Network for Neuro-Oriented Target Speaker Extraction

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims IFENet, combining a dual-path Mamba speech encoder with a KAN-based EEG encoder, outperforms the previous best model, with relative SI-SDR gains of 36% on KUL and 29% on AVED.

desk verdict Real architecture, clean ablation, but the SOTA claim is under-supported because Table I skips the strongest baselines. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01673 v1 pith:WJ5TE7HK submitted 2025-01-03 cs.SD eess.AS

Cunhang Fan , Youdian Gao , Zexu Pan , Jingjing Zhang , Hongyu Zhang , Jie Zhang , Zhao Lv This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SDeess.AS
keywords targetspeakerextractionEEGauditoryattentiondecodingMambaKolmogorov-ArnoldNetworksSI-SDRspeechseparationbrain-computerinterface
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 improve neuro-oriented target speaker extraction—pulling the attended talker out of a mixed recording using the listener's EEG as the clue to who is being attended. It proposes IFENet, a time-domain network whose speech encoder uses dual-path Mamba (SpeechBiMamba) to model local and global structure in long speech sequences, and whose EEG encoder uses Kolmogorov-Arnold layers inside an attention block (EEGKAN) to identify the attended speaker. On the KUL and newly introduced AVED datasets, IFENet reports relative SI-SDR gains of 36% and 29% over the MSFNet baseline, together with higher PESQ, STOI, and ESTOI scores. The ablation study shows that the EEGKAN module is the larger contributor, indicating that the quality of EEG feature extraction, not just speech sequence modeling, drives the improvement.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a pair of feature-extraction modules inserted into a Conv-TasNet-style pipeline. SpeechBiMamba is a dual-path Mamba: it scans the speech representation through selective state-space blocks once forward and once backward, over local segments and over the whole sequence, so long-range dependencies are modeled in linear time. EEGKAN is an attention-based EEG encoder in which the feed-forward MLPs are replaced by Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks, giving the EEG branch learnable univariate activation functions that the paper argues better capture speaker-related attention information; a convolutional multi-layer cross-attention (CMCA) module then fuses the speech and EEG embeddings before mask estimation.

What would settle it

Re-run IFENet and MSFNet under leave-one-subject-out cross-validation on the KUL dataset (train on 15 subjects, test on the 16th) and compare SI-SDR; if the relative gain disappears or reverses, the claim that the modules generalize beyond per-subject training is undermined. An external subject-independent benchmark on AVED would test the same point for the 29% gain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports that IFENet—a time-domain, end-to-end network built on the Conv-TasNet encoder–mask–decoder structure—extracts the attended speaker from a mixture using EEG as the only cue. Its speech encoder, SpeechBiMamba, applies dual-path Mamba blocks forward and backward over both local segments and the full sequence to capture long-range speech structure; its EEG encoder, EEGKAN, replaces MLP layers with Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks inside a multi-head attention block. On the KUL dataset IFENet reaches an SI-SDR of 6.85 dB versus MSFNet's 5.05 dB, a 36% relative improvement, and on the AVED dataset 8.76 dB versus 6.78 dB, a 29% relative improvement, with higher PESQ, STOI, and ESTOI in both cases. The ablation study attributes the larger share of the gain to EEGKAN: removing it drops KUL SI-SDR to 3.89 dB, whereas removing SpeechBiMamba leaves 6.64 dB.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that per-subject training and the newly recorded AVED dataset represent real-world use; if the method must generalize to unseen subjects, or if AVED is not a fair proxy, the reported 36% and 29% gains may not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 36% and 29% relative SI-SDR gains over MSFNet, if reproduced, mean the architecture is a strong candidate for replacing CNN-only feature extractors in neuro-steered speech extraction.
  • The ablation result implies that EEG feature extraction carries most of the improvement, so future work that strengthens the EEG branch rather than the speech branch should be prioritized within this architecture.
  • Because the system runs entirely in the time domain and needs no enrollment utterance from the target speaker, it is compatible with hearing-assist scenarios where only the listener's EEG and the mixed audio are available.
  • The consistent gains across the English KUL and Mandarin AVED recordings suggest the modules are not tied to one language or stimulus format.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the larger ablation penalty for removing EEGKAN (KUL SI-SDR falls from 6.85 to 3.89 dB) suggests that a simpler speech encoder paired with a strong EEG front-end could reproduce most of the gain; testing that configuration would separate the two modules' contributions.
  • Beyond the paper, because models are trained and tested per subject, the reported gains may reflect subject-specific EEG signatures rather than a general attention decoder; a leave-one-subject-out experiment on KUL would show which.
  • Beyond the paper, the newly introduced AVED dataset is Mandarin and recorded in-lab, so releasing it and having independent groups benchmark on it would establish whether the 29% relative improvement transfers across recording setups.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes IFENet, a time-domain neural network for EEG-guided target speaker extraction. The architecture uses a SpeechBiMamba encoder based on dual-path Mamba for long-range speech modeling, and an EEGKAN encoder that combines multi-head attention with Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks for EEG feature extraction. The model is evaluated on the KUL dataset and a newly introduced AVED dataset against BASEN, BASEN*, and MSFNet, reporting relative SI-SDR improvements of 36% and 29% over MSFNet, with ablations showing that EEGKAN contributes most of the gain.

Significance. If the reported results hold, IFENet offers a competitive architecture for neuro-steered speaker extraction, and the combination of dual-path Mamba for speech and KAN-based attention for EEG is a sensible design direction. The ablation study in Table II clearly isolates the contribution of EEGKAN and demonstrates that it is the dominant factor (KUL: 6.85 vs. 3.89 SI-SDR without EEGKAN). The introduction of the Mandarin AVED dataset is a potentially useful new resource for the community. However, the headline claim of state-of-the-art performance is undercut by the omission of the strongest published baselines (NeuroHeed, NeuroHeed+) from the comparison and by the absence of any statistical significance or variance information.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.A, Table I] The claim that IFENet 'outperforms the state-of-the-art model' is not supported by the presented comparison. The Introduction cites NeuroHeed [23] and NeuroHeed+ [24] as existing neuro-steered speaker extraction systems, but Table I compares IFENet only with BASEN, BASEN*, and MSFNet. The headline relative improvements of 36% and 29% are computed against MSFNet, which is not established as the best prior method. Without including NeuroHeed/NeuroHeed+ under the same protocol, the central SOTA claim does not follow from the evidence.
  2. [Section III.B, Section IV.A] The evaluation reports a single run per condition with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests. In Table I, on KUL, IFENet's SI-SDR (6.85 dB) is only 0.55 dB above BASEN* (6.30 dB); without repeated runs or statistical testing, the reader cannot judge whether this gap is reproducible. Given that the central claim is superiority over prior systems, measures of variability are essential.
  3. [Section IV.A] The text misreports the AVED results: it states that IFENet outperforms MSFNet by '0.2 in PESQ, 0.3 in STOI, and 0.6 in ESTOI', but the differences in Table I are 0.20, 0.03, and 0.06, respectively. This factor-of-ten error obscures the actual magnitude of the improvements and must be corrected and checked against the raw results.
  4. [Abstract, Section III.B] The abstract says the results are achieved 'under an open evaluation condition', but this term is never defined in the experimental setup or results. If it refers to the per-subject 80/10/10 trial split described in Section III.B, this should be stated explicitly; if it refers to a different protocol, the description in Section III.B does not currently match it. As written, the headline condition is unverifiable.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III.A] There are repeated typographical issues: 'Datesets' should be 'Datasets', and 'A VED' appears with a space in many places (e.g., Table I, Section IV).
  2. [Section III.A.2] The AVED dataset description lacks basic acoustic and task details, such as signal-to-noise ratio of the mixtures, trial duration, speech segment lengths, and how the two talkers are paired. This makes it difficult to compare the new dataset with existing benchmarks or to interpret the absolute SI-SDR values, which are noticeably higher for all methods on AVED than on KUL.
  3. [Reference [25]] The citation for MSFNet is incomplete: 'in ACM Multimedia. in Proc.' appears truncated and the publication year is missing.
  4. [Section II.D, Eq. (3)] The SI-SDR formula is typeset ambiguously in the provided text; the numerator and denominator need clear delimiters so the projection term is unambiguous.
  5. [Section II.B] The description of SpeechBiMamba does not explain how the 'flip' operation is implemented (e.g., time reversal) or how the outputs of the forward and backward Mamba passes are combined before the concatenation step.
  6. [Section II.C, Fig. 1/Fig. 2] The text says EEGKAN consists of a multi-head attention block, three KAN layers, and dropouts, but Fig. 1 labels the EEG encoder block with '×5'; the relationship between this factor and the number of KAN layers/number of layers in the EEGKAN module is not clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the reported gains come from held-out test evaluations, and the self-cited MSFNet baseline is a benchmark rather than a derivation input.

full rationale

The paper's argument is empirical, not deductive. IFENet is trained end-to-end by minimizing negative SI-SDR and is evaluated on per-subject held-out test splits (80/10/10), so the reported SI-SDR, PESQ, and STOI values are not determined by construction from the training inputs. SpeechBiMamba and EEGKAN are architectural components, not fitted parameters that are then renamed as predictions. The comparison with MSFNet, a prior model from the same research group, is a benchmark choice; the numerical advantage is computed from independently obtained test-set outputs, so the result does not reduce to the self-citation. The omission of NeuroHeed and NeuroHeed+ from Table I weakens the 'state-of-the-art' wording, but that is an evidence-completeness issue, not a circular step. No equation or definition in the paper makes the predicted quantity equal to an input or to a parameter fitted from the evaluation data.

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

This is an empirical engineering paper with no new theoretical entities. The free parameters are the standard hyperparameters of the neural network; the axioms are the usual assumptions in EEG-based speech extraction, plus the validity of the newly introduced AVED dataset.

free parameters (5)
  • Number of Mamba blocks in SpeechBiMamba (N) = 4
    Manually chosen as per Section II-B2; not tuned, and could affect modeling capacity and performance.
  • Number of EEGKAN layers = 5
    Repeated five times in the EEG encoder as shown in Fig. 1; no ablation on this count is performed.
  • Number of attention heads in EEGKAN = 2
    Set to two heads as described in Section II-C2; not varied in the experiments.
  • Dropout probability in EEGKAN = 0.5
    Used after attention and KAN layers; a standard hyperparameter but chosen by hand.
  • Learning rate = 0.0002
    Adam optimizer with linear warmup and cosine annealing; chosen for training, as stated in Section III-C.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Kolmogorov-Arnold representation theorem
    Basis for KAN layers in EEGKAN; the theorem guarantees that multivariate continuous functions can be represented by sums of univariate functions, but the paper does not prove the network implements the theorem.
  • standard math State-space model equations (Eq. 1-2)
    Foundational equations for Mamba's selective state-space model; assumed correct from prior literature.
  • domain assumption EEG signals carry recoverable auditory attention information
    The whole premise of AAD-based extraction; supported by cited works but not established in this paper.
  • domain assumption Per-subject models are necessary due to EEG variability
    The paper trains a separate model for each subject and averages results; this assumes no cross-subject generalization is needed.
  • domain assumption AVED dataset is a valid benchmark
    The authors recorded the dataset but provide limited description; its validity is assumed for the reported comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improved Feature Extraction Network for Neuro-Oriented Target Speaker Extraction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WJ5TE7HK

@misc{pith2026250101673,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improved Feature Extraction Network for Neuro-Oriented Target Speaker Extraction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WJ5TE7HK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01673}
}
read the original abstract

The recent rapid development of auditory attention decoding (AAD) offers the possibility of using electroencephalography (EEG) as auxiliary information for target speaker extraction. However, effectively modeling long sequences of speech and resolving the identity of the target speaker from EEG signals remains a major challenge. In this paper, an improved feature extraction network (IFENet) is proposed for neuro-oriented target speaker extraction, which mainly consists of a speech encoder with dual-path Mamba and an EEG encoder with Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (KAN). We propose SpeechBiMamba, which makes use of dual-path Mamba in modeling local and global speech sequences to extract speech features. In addition, we propose EEGKAN to effectively extract EEG features that are closely related to the auditory stimuli and locate the target speaker through the subject's attention information. Experiments on the KUL and AVED datasets show that IFENet outperforms the state-of-the-art model, achieving 36\% and 29\% relative improvements in terms of scale-invariant signal-to-distortion ratio (SI-SDR) under an open evaluation condition.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01673 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overall structure of IFENet. the corresponding masks are estimated. Finally, the mask is restored to the final speech waveform. We conduct experiments on two datasets, the publicly available KULeuven (KUL) dataset [28], and the laboratory-acquired AVED dataset1 . On the KUL and AVED datasets, The proposed IFENet achieves a relative improvement of 36% and 29% over the MSFNet in SI-SDR [29], and the perceptual eva… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Mamba block, (b) EEGKAN layer. C. EEG Encoder 1) KAN: The proposal of Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (KAN) [42] is inspired by the Kolmogorov-Arnold representa￾tion theorem, and KAN has the same fully connected structure as MLPs. However, unlike traditional MLPs, MLPs set fixed activation functions on the node, and KAN places learnable activation functions on the side. At the same time, KAN nodes do not need to perf… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. M3ANet: Multi-scale and Multi-Modal Alignment Network for Brain-Assisted Target Speaker Extraction

    eess.AS 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    M3ANet aligns EEG and speech representations with InfoNCE contrastive learning and encodes speech with multi-scale convolutions plus GroupMamba, improving brain-assisted target speaker extraction on three datasets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [23]

    Neuroheed: Neuro- steered speaker extraction using EEG signals,

    Z. Pan, M. Borsdorf, S. Cai, T. Schultz, and H. Li, “Neuroheed: Neuro- steered speaker extraction using EEG signals,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing , 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [24]

    Neuroheed+: Improving neuro-steered speaker extraction with joint auditory attention detection,

    Z. Pan, G. Wichern, F. G. Germain, S. Khurana, and J. Le Roux, “Neuroheed+: Improving neuro-steered speaker extraction with joint auditory attention detection,” in Proc. ICASSP. 2024, pp. 11 456–11 460

    work page 2024

  3. [1]

    Towards explainable monaural speaker separation with auditory-based training,

    H. Taherian, V . Ahmadi Kalkhorani, A. Pandey, D. Wong, B. Xu, and D. Wang, “Towards explainable monaural speaker separation with auditory-based training,” in Interspeech, 2024, pp. 572–576

    work page 2024

  4. [2]

    Combining conformer and Dual-Path-Transformer networks for single channel noisy reverberant speech separation,

    W. Ravenscroft, S. Goetze, and T. Hain, “Combining conformer and Dual-Path-Transformer networks for single channel noisy reverberant speech separation,” in ICASSP, 2024, pp. 11 491–11 495

    work page 2024

  5. [3]

    Dual-Path RNN: Efficient long sequence modeling for time-domain single-channel speech separation,

    Y . Luo, Z. Chen, and T. Yoshioka, “Dual-Path RNN: Efficient long sequence modeling for time-domain single-channel speech separation,” in ICASSP, 2020, pp. 46–50

    work page 2020

  6. [4]

    SpEx: Multi-scale time domain speaker extraction network,

    C. Xu, W. Rao, E. S. Chng, and H. Li, “SpEx: Multi-scale time domain speaker extraction network,” IEEE/ACM transactions on audio, speech, and language processing , vol. 28, pp. 1370–1384, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [5]

    SpEx+: A complete time domain speaker extraction network,

    M. Ge, C. Xu, L. Wang, E. Chng, J. Dang, and H. Li, “SpEx+: A complete time domain speaker extraction network,” in Proc. Interspeech, 2020, pp. 1406–1410

    work page 2020

  8. [6]

    Speakerbeam-ss: Real-time target speaker extraction with lightweight Conv-TasNet and state space modeling,

    H. Sato, T. Moriya, M. Mimura, S. Horiguchi, T. Ochiai, T. Ashihara, A. Ando, K. Shinayama, and M. Delcroix, “Speakerbeam-ss: Real-time target speaker extraction with lightweight Conv-TasNet and state space modeling,” in Proc. Interspeech, 2024, pp. 5033–5037

    work page 2024

Show all 44 references
  1. [7]

    Bin- aural selective attention model for target speaker extraction,

    H. Meng, Q. Zhang, X. Zhang, V . Sethu, and E. Ambikairajah, “Bin- aural selective attention model for target speaker extraction,” in Proc. Interspeech, 2024, pp. 4323–4327

    2024

  2. [8]

    A study of multichannel spatiotemporal features and knowledge distillation on robust target speaker extraction,

    Y . Wang, J. Zhang, S. Chen, W. Zhang, Z. Ye, X. Zhou, and L. Dai, “A study of multichannel spatiotemporal features and knowledge distillation on robust target speaker extraction,” in Proc. ICASSP, 2024, pp. 431– 435

    2024

  3. [9]

    L-SpEx: Localized target speaker extraction,

    M. Ge, C. Xu, L. Wang, E. S. Chng, J. Dang, and H. Li, “L-SpEx: Localized target speaker extraction,” in Proc. ICASSP. 2022, pp. 7287– 7291

    2022

  4. [10]

    Target speaker extraction by directly exploiting contextual information in the time-frequency domain,

    X. Yang, C. Bao, J. Zhou, and X. Chen, “Target speaker extraction by directly exploiting contextual information in the time-frequency domain,” in Proc. ICASSP. 2024, pp. 10 476–10 480

    2024

  5. [11]

    USEV: Universal speaker extraction with visual cue,

    Z. Pan, M. Ge, and H. Li, “USEV: Universal speaker extraction with visual cue,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, vol. 30, pp. 3032–3045, 2022

    2022

  6. [12]

    Unified audio visual cues for target speaker extraction,

    T. Wu, S. He, J. Pan, H. Huang, Z. Mo, and X. Zhang, “Unified audio visual cues for target speaker extraction,” in Proc. Interspeech 2024 , 2024, pp. 4343–4347

    2024

  7. [13]

    EEG-based auditory attention detec- tion and its possible future applications for passive bci,

    J. Belo, M. Clerc, and D. Sch ¨on, “EEG-based auditory attention detec- tion and its possible future applications for passive bci,” Frontiers in computer science, vol. 3, p. 661178, 2021

    2021

  8. [14]

    A Densenet-based method for decoding auditory spatial attention with EEG,

    X. Xu, B. Wang, Y . Yan, X. Wu, and J. Chen, “A Densenet-based method for decoding auditory spatial attention with EEG,” in Proc. ICASSP , 2024, pp. 1946–1950

    2024

  9. [15]

    Cortical auditory at- tention decoding during music and speech listening,

    A. Simon, G. Loquet, J. Østergaard, and S. Bech, “Cortical auditory at- tention decoding during music and speech listening,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering , 2023

    2023

  10. [16]

    Dbpnet: Dual- branch parallel network with temporal-frequency fusion for auditory attention detection,

    Q. Ni, H. Zhang, C. Fan, S. Pei, C. Zhou, and Z. Lv, “Dbpnet: Dual- branch parallel network with temporal-frequency fusion for auditory attention detection,” in Proceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-24) , 2024

    2024

  11. [17]

    DARNet: Dual attention refinement network with spatiotemporal construction for auditory attention detection,

    S. Yan, C. Fan, H. Zhang, X. Yang, J. Tao, and Z. Lv, “DARNet: Dual attention refinement network with spatiotemporal construction for auditory attention detection,” in The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2024

    2024

  12. [18]

    Dgsd: Dynamical graph self-distillation for eeg-based auditory spatial attention detection,

    C. Fan, H. Zhang, W. Huang, J. Xue, J. Tao, J. Yi, Z. Lv, and X. Wu, “Dgsd: Dynamical graph self-distillation for eeg-based auditory spatial attention detection,” Neural Networks, vol. 179, p. 106580, 2024

    2024

  13. [19]

    Brain-informed speech separation (BISS) for enhancement of target speaker in mul- titalker speech perception,

    E. Ceolini, J. Hjortkjær, D. D. Wong, J. O’Sullivan, V . S. Raghavan, J. Herrero, A. D. Mehta, S.-C. Liu, and N. Mesgarani, “Brain-informed speech separation (BISS) for enhancement of target speaker in mul- titalker speech perception,” NeuroImage, vol. 223, p. 117282, 2020

    2020

  14. [20]

    Speaker-independent brain enhanced speech denoising,

    M. Hosseini, L. Celotti, and ´E. Plourde, “Speaker-independent brain enhanced speech denoising,” in Proc. ICASSP. 2021, pp. 1310–1314

    2021

  15. [21]

    End-to-end brain-driven speech enhancement in multi-talker conditions,

    M. Hosseini, L. Celotti, and E. Plourde, “End-to-end brain-driven speech enhancement in multi-talker conditions,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, vol. 30, pp. 1718–1733, 2022

    2022

  16. [22]

    BASEN: Time-domain brain-assisted speech enhancement network with convolutional cross attention in multi-talker conditions,

    J. Zhang, Q. Xu, Q.-S. Zhu, and Z.-H. Ling, “BASEN: Time-domain brain-assisted speech enhancement network with convolutional cross attention in multi-talker conditions,” in Proc. Interspeech , 2023, pp. 3117–3121

    2023

  17. [25]

    MSFNet: Multi-scale fusion network for brain-controlled speaker extraction,

    C. Fan, J. Zhang, H. Zhang, W. Xiang, J. Tao, X. Li, J. Yi, D. Sui, and Z. Lv, “MSFNet: Multi-scale fusion network for brain-controlled speaker extraction,” in ACM Multimedia. in Proc

  18. [26]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. u. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” in Proc. NeuIPS, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Multi- head attention and GRU for improved match-mismatch classification of speech stimulus and EEG response,

    M. Borsdorf, S. Pahuja, G. Ivucic, S. Cai, H. Li, and T. Schultz, “Multi- head attention and GRU for improved match-mismatch classification of speech stimulus and EEG response,” in Proc. ICASSP, 2023, pp. 1–2

    2023

  20. [28]

    Auditory-inspired speech envelope extraction methods for improved EEG-based auditory attention detection in a cocktail party scenario,

    W. Biesmans, N. Das, T. Francart, and A. Bertrand, “Auditory-inspired speech envelope extraction methods for improved EEG-based auditory attention detection in a cocktail party scenario,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering , vol. 25, no. 5, pp. ...

    2017

  21. [29]

    SDR-half-baked or well done?

    J. Le Roux, S. Wisdom, H. Erdogan, and J. R. Hershey, “SDR-half-baked or well done?” in Proc. ICASSP. 2019, pp. 626–630

    2019

  22. [30]

    Perceptual evaluation of speech quality (PESQ)-a new method for speech quality assessment of telephone networks and codecs,

    A. W. Rix, J. G. Beerends, M. P. Hollier, and A. P. Hekstra, “Perceptual evaluation of speech quality (PESQ)-a new method for speech quality assessment of telephone networks and codecs,” in Proc. ICASSP, vol. 2, 2001, pp. 749–752

    2001

  23. [31]

    Conv-TasNet: Surpassing ideal time- frequency magnitude masking for speech separation,

    Y . Luo and N. Mesgarani, “Conv-TasNet: Surpassing ideal time- frequency magnitude masking for speech separation,” IEEE/ACM trans- actions on audio, speech, and language processing , vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1256–1266, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Mamba: Linear-time sequence modeling with selective state spaces,

    A. Gu and T. Dao, “Mamba: Linear-time sequence modeling with selective state spaces,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00752 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Efficiently modeling long sequences with structured state spaces,

    A. Gu, K. Goel, and C. Re, “Efficiently modeling long sequences with structured state spaces,” in Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    MambaHSI: Spa- tial–spectral mamba for hyperspectral image classification,

    Y . Li, Y . Luo, L. Zhang, Z. Wang, and B. Du, “MambaHSI: Spa- tial–spectral mamba for hyperspectral image classification,” IEEE Trans- actions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 62, pp. 1–16, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    SSUMamba: Spatial-spectral selective state space model for hyperspectral image denoising,

    G. Fu, F. Xiong, J. Lu, and J. Zhou, “SSUMamba: Spatial-spectral selective state space model for hyperspectral image denoising,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 62, pp. 1–14, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Graph Mamba: Towards learning on graphs with state space models,

    A. Behrouz and F. Hashemi, “Graph Mamba: Towards learning on graphs with state space models,” in Proc. ACM SIGKDD , 2024, pp. 119–130

    2024

  29. [37]

    Audio Mamba: Selective state spaces for self- supervised audio representations,

    S. Yadav and Z.-H. Tan, “Audio Mamba: Selective state spaces for self- supervised audio representations,” in in Proc. Interspeech , 2024, pp. 552–556

    2024

  30. [38]

    RawBMamba: End-to-end bidirectional state space model for audio deepfake detection,

    Y . Chen, J. Yi, J. Xue, C. Wang, X. Zhang, S. Dong, S. Zeng, J. Tao, Z. Lv, and C. Fan, “RawBMamba: End-to-end bidirectional state space model for audio deepfake detection,” in Proc. Interspeech , 2024, pp. 2720–2724

    2024

  31. [39]

    Exploring the capability of mamba in speech applications,

    K. Miyazaki, Y . Masuyama, and M. Murata, “Exploring the capability of mamba in speech applications,” in Proc. Interspeech, 2024, pp. 237– 241

    2024

  32. [40]

    Dual-Path Mamba: Short and long-term bidirectional selective structured state space models for speech separation,

    X. Jiang, C. Han, and N. Mesgarani, “Dual-Path Mamba: Short and long-term bidirectional selective structured state space models for speech separation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.18257 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    An investigation of incorporating mamba for speech enhancement,

    R. Chao, W.-H. Cheng, M. La Quatra, S. M. Siniscalchi, C.-H. H. Yang, S.-W. Fu, and Y . Tsao, “An investigation of incorporating mamba for speech enhancement,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.06573 , 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    KAN: Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks,

    Z. Liu, Y . Wang, S. Vaidya, F. Ruehle, J. Halverson, M. Solja ˇci´c, T. Y . Hou, and M. Tegmark, “KAN: Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19756, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Sckansformer: Fine-grained classification of bone marrow cells via kansformer backbone and hierarchical attention mechanisms,

    Y . Chen, Z. Zhu, S. Zhu, L. Qiu, B. Zou, F. Jia, Y . Zhu, C. Zhang, Z. Fang, F. Qin et al. , “Sckansformer: Fine-grained classification of bone marrow cells via kansformer backbone and hierarchical attention mechanisms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09931 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    An algorithm for intelligibility prediction of time-frequency weighted noisy speech,

    C. H. Taal, R. C. Hendriks, R. Heusdens, and J. Jensen, “An algorithm for intelligibility prediction of time-frequency weighted noisy speech,” IEEE Transactions on audio, speech, and language processing , vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 2125–2136, 2011

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.