Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 33 references

TF-MossFormer claims that pairing content-aware sliding-window local attention with global attention and convolutional gating in the time-frequency domain outperforms prior models on monaural speech separation, reaching 22.6–24.4 dB SI-SDRi

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 08:21 UTC pith:4CCBKVYY

load-bearing objection Credible incremental TF-separation architecture; the gains are plausible but the SOTA claim depends on unmatched baselines and the abstract overstates the local attention. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21128 v1 pith:4CCBKVYY submitted 2026-07-23 cs.SD

TF-MossFormer: Integrating Convolution Gated Local-Global Attentions for Enhanced Time-Frequency Domain Monaural Speech Separation

Shengkui Zhao , Zexu Pan , Haoxu Wang , Biao Tian , Bin Ma , Xiangang Li This is my paper
classification cs.SD
keywords speech separationmonauraltime-frequency domaintransformersliding-window attentionlocal-global attentionconvolutional gatingWSJ0-2Mix
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper claims that the best way to separate two overlapping voices from one microphone is to make a transformer see both near and far in the spectrogram at once. It introduces TF-MossFormer, a time–frequency network whose separator alternates frequency and temporal modeling, pairing dense global attention with a sliding-window local attention and convolutional gating. On the standard WSJ0-2Mix benchmark, three sizes reach 22.6, 24.0, and 24.4 dB SI-SDRi, all above prior published models at comparable scale. A sympathetic reader would care because the design directly targets the two things speech separation needs—preserving harmonic and phoneme-level continuity while keeping speaker identity consistent across an utterance—in one architecture.

Core claim

TF-MossFormer's central claim is that local attention with a fixed sliding window (31 frames on the time path, 7 bins on the frequency path) followed by global multi-head attention, with Conv-SwiGLU gating between attention layers, outperforms both pure global-attention transformers and convolution-only local models for monaural speech separation. The paper reports SI-SDRi of 22.6 dB with 6.0M parameters, 24.0 dB with 16.9M, and 24.4 dB with 25.4M, beating the compared TF-domain and time-domain baselines. Ablations support the design: full-length windows give 22.38 dB, local-first ordering beats global-first (22.61 vs 22.45 dB), and removing the convolutional gate drops performance to 22.51

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is a dual-path TF separator with two attention mechanisms in each sub-module: global multi-head self-attention (every frame attends to every frame, O(T^2D)) and sliding-window local multi-head attention (each frame attends only to w neighbors, O(TwD)). These are interleaved with Conv-SwiGLU feed-forward blocks and RMSGroupNorm, and the separator alternates modeling along the frequency and time axes. The local window is what preserves fine spectro-temporal continuity, global attention supplies long-range speaker context, and the convolutional gating is what the ablation credits with feature-selection gains.

Load-bearing premise

The central outperformance claim rests on the assumption that the comparison numbers for prior models were produced under the same STFT settings, data preparation, and training protocol; with reported margins of 0.1–0.4 dB, small recipe differences could erase the lead.

What would settle it

Reproduce TF-Locoformer(S*), SPMamba, and TF-GridNet under the exact recipe used for TF-MossFormer (16 ms window, 8 ms hop, 4 s clips, SI-SDR loss, same optimizer schedule) and compare SI-SDRi. If the reported gaps of 0.1–0.4 dB do not persist, the claim of outperformance fails; if they do, the architectural comparison is confirmed.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • At small scale, TF-MossFormer(S) with 6.0M parameters reaches 22.6 dB SI-SDRi, 0.1 dB above SPMamba while using less than half the compute (99.5 vs 238.6 G MACS/s).
  • At medium and large scale, the 16.9M and 25.4M variants reach 24.0 and 24.4 dB SI-SDRi, surpassing TF-GridNet and TF-Locoformer on the same benchmark.
  • Ablations show that moderate local windows (31 time, 7 frequency) beat both narrower and full-length windows, indicating a local inductive bias is helpful for spectrogram modeling.
  • Cascading local attention before global attention and adding Conv-SwiGLU gating each contribute measurable gains in the reported ablations.
  • Because local attention complexity is linear in sequence length for a fixed window, the architecture scales more cheaply than full attention as utterance length grows.
  • The improvements hold across all three model sizes, suggesting the local–global design transfers from compact to large configurations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the tuned (31,7) window sizes were found on 8 kHz speech; at higher sample rates, for music, or for speech enhancement the optimal local receptive field likely shifts, and sweeping window sizes is a direct test.
  • Editorial inference: at small scale the 0.1 dB lead over SPMamba is close to the noise floor of benchmark comparisons, so the more robust contribution there may be the compute reduction rather than raw quality.
  • Editorial inference: since full-length attention underperforms the fixed windows, the local window acts as an inductive bias for spectrogram structure; a learnable or content-adaptive window size might extend the gains further.
  • Editorial inference: the same local–global attention pattern could transfer to neighboring tasks such as speech enhancement or noisy-reverberant separation, where local TF continuity matters as much as long-range context.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes TF-MossFormer, a time–frequency domain monaural speech separation model. The separator stacks B blocks, each containing frequency and temporal modeling modules. Each module uses Conv-SwiGLU feed-forward blocks, RMSGroupNorm, and a cascade of local sliding-window multi-head self-attention followed by global full self-attention, augmented with Conv1D/Swish gates. The model is evaluated on WSJ0-2Mix at three scales (S/M/L) with reported SI-SDRi of 22.6, 24.0, and 24.4 dB, and it is claimed to outperform prior time-frequency and time-domain baselines. The paper also reports ablations over sliding-window sizes and block layouts.

Significance. If the empirical results are valid, this is a useful engineering contribution: the architecture is clearly described, the scaling behavior is plausible, and the efficiency numbers are reported transparently. The ablation study over window sizes and local–global attention layouts is informative. However, the central SOTA claim is not yet established. The reported margins over strong baselines are 0.1–0.4 dB SI-SDRi, which are on the order of typical recipe-induced variation, and the decisive comparisons are mostly cross-paper. In addition, the abstract's 'content-aware' characterization of the local attention is not supported by the formulation. These issues are fixable, but they are load-bearing for the paper's central claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Tables 2–3] The hyperparameters (w_T=31, w_F=7) and the V1 block layout are selected by comparing SI-SDRi values on WSJ0-2Mix, but the paper does not state whether the ablations are run on the validation set or the test set. The phrasing and the fact that the final test numbers match the best ablation rows suggest test-set selection. If the test set was used for model selection, the reported final numbers are optimistically biased and are not unbiased estimates of generalization. Please either select hyperparameters on a held-out validation set and report test results only for the final configuration, or clearly state the selection procedure if a validation set was used.
  2. [§3.1, §3.3, Tables 4–5] The central claim of outperforming prior approaches rests on cross-paper comparisons. Only TF-Locoformer(S*) is reimplemented under the paper's ESPnet configuration; all other baselines are taken from their original publications, which may use different STFT window/hop lengths, segment lengths, loss functions, and training schedules. The decisive margins are 0.1 dB vs. SPMamba, 0.4 dB vs. TF-Locoformer(S*/M), and 0.2 dB vs. TF-Locoformer(L). These are within the range of typical recipe-induced variation. To support the SOTA claim, the authors should re-run the most competitive baselines under the same recipe, or provide error bars and uncertainty estimates that establish the margins are meaningful.
  3. [Abstract, §2.3.1, Eq. (3)] The abstract and contribution list describe the local attention as 'content-aware sliding-window attention that dynamically adapts receptive fields.' However, Eq. (3) defines the window as N(t) = {t-(w-1)/2, ..., t+(w-1)/2} with a fixed, manually tuned w (31 or 7 in Table 1). There is no content-dependent adaptation of the window or receptive field. This is a mismatch between the claim and the actual mechanism. Please either implement and evaluate a genuinely content-aware mechanism or revise the wording to 'fixed sliding-window local attention.'
  4. [§3.3] All headline results appear to be from a single run each, and no code, checkpoints, or random seeds are provided. Given that the paper's contribution is defined by small margins over strong baselines, the absence of multiple-seed statistics (mean ± std) and the lack of released artifacts make the results difficult to verify. Please report variance across at least a few runs and, if possible, release code/checkpoints so that the comparisons can be reproduced.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] The table title says 'TF-MambaFormer' but should be 'TF-MossFormer.' Also, the S-model parameter count is 6.0M in Table 1 and Table 4, but the abstract says 5.9M; please make these consistent.
  2. [§2.3] The text says 'The module architecture is shown in Fig. 1(b),' but Fig. 1 illustrates attention patterns; the module architecture is presumably in Fig. 2(b). Please correct the cross-reference.
  3. [Table 4] The TF-MossFormer(S) row reports SDRi as 22.8, while the text and Table 2 give 22.77 dB. Please align the reported values.
  4. [Tables 2–5] The unit 'MACS [G/s]' is unconventional; standard usage is 'GMAC/s' or 'G MAC/s'. Please update for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; central claim is empirical and self-contained against external benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical SI-SDRi result on the external WSJ0-2Mix benchmark, obtained by training a proposed neural architecture and comparing against published baselines. There is no derivation chain in which a predicted quantity reduces by definition to a fitted input. The self-citations to MossFormer and MossFormer2 (e.g., Refs. [8,9] in the Introduction and Table 5) are background context and baseline comparisons, not load-bearing justifications for the reported improvements. The adoption of Conv-SwiGLU/RMSGroupNorm from TF-Locoformer [14] is an external design choice, not a self-citation, and citing prior work for architectural components is normal practice rather than circularity. The ablations in Tables 2-3 select window sizes and attention order based on measured SI-SDRi, which is model selection on the benchmark; this is a methodological concern (potential selection bias or test-set tuning) but not a case where a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The mismatch between the abstract's 'content-aware sliding-window attention' and the fixed-window formulation in Eq. (3) is an overclaim about the mechanism, not circular reasoning. Similarly, the reliance on published baseline numbers in Tables 4-5 raises comparability risk under different training recipes, but that is an external-validity threat rather than a self-referential reduction. No equation in the paper equals a target result by construction, and no load-bearing argument relies on the authors' own unverified prior work. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's contribution is a combination of known modules plus hand-tuned hyperparameters. The only unverified conceptual entity is the "content-aware" sliding-window attention promised in the abstract; it is not realized in the equations. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • w_T = 31 = 31
    Temporal sliding-window length; selected by ablation on WSJ0-2Mix (Table 2); directly controls local receptive field.
  • w_F = 7 = 7
    Frequency sliding-window length; selected by ablation (Table 2); directly controls local receptive field.
  • Attention block layout V1 (local-then-global cascade) = V1
    Selected by ablation among V1-V4 (Table 3); used in all headline models.
  • Model-scale hyperparameters (D, B, H, h) = S: 96,4,256,4; M: 128,6,384,4; L: 128,9,384,4
    Chosen manually to hit parameter counts 6.0/16.9/25.4M; not derived.
  • STFT window/hop and segment length = 16 ms / 8 ms / 4 s
    Fixed signal-representation parameters; affect all results; no derivation given.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Baseline scores from other papers are comparable to scores produced by this paper's own ESPnet pipeline.
    Needed for the "outperforming prior approaches" claim (Abstract, Tables 4–5); only TF-Locoformer(S*) is re-run by the authors.
  • domain assumption WSJ0-2Mix is an adequate benchmark for claiming enhanced monaural speech separation.
    All conclusions are drawn from a single 8kHz two-speaker fully-overlapped corpus; no noisy, reverberant, or >2-speaker evidence.
  • standard math Standard attention and STFT mathematics from cited works are accepted.
    MHSA equations (1)-(2) and STFT/iSTFT are used without re-derivation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 7892 in / 13704 out tokens · 121525 ms · 2026-08-01T08:21:51.394869+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Transformers with global attention capture long-range dependencies but can miss the fine-grained local continuity crucial for speech separation. We propose TF-MossFormer, a time-frequency transformer that combines local and global attention to jointly model short- and long-range contexts for monaural speech separation. At its core is a content-aware sliding-window attention mechanism that dynamically adapts receptive fields for stronger local interactions, avoiding the rigidity of static convolutions. Unlike time-domain chunk-based methods, TF-MossFormer leverages the 2D spectrogram to model structure along both time and frequency axes. Convolutional gating between attention layers further improves feature selection and information flow. TF-MossFormer achieves SI-SDRi of 22.6, 24.0, and 24.4 dB on WSJ0-2Mix with 5.9M, 16.9M, and 25.4M parameters, respectively, outperforming prior approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21128 by Biao Tian, Bin Ma, Haoxu Wang, Shengkui Zhao, Xiangang Li, Zexu Pan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of the global and local attention patterns in TF-MossFormer. (a) Global attention: captures long-range de￾pendencies across the entire spectrogram, (b) Local attention: focuses on fine-grained continuity within sliding windows. local modeling at lower cost. Conformer-based methods [10] take a complementary approach by embedding convolutional modules inside attention blocks, explicitly fusing l… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of TF-MossFormer. (a) Model flowchart with STFT/ISTFT, Conv2D/Deconv2D, gLN, and B stacked TF-MossFormer blocks for interleaved time–frequency modeling. (b) Configuration of the frequency modeling block (the temporal block adopts the same structure). (c) Three variants (V1–V3) of the gated local–global MHSA module. ⊕: element-wise addition, ⊗: element-wise multiplication. 2. The TF-MossFormer Mode… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: An overview of the local attention module, which per￾forms multi-head self-attention using sliding windows. Each attention head operates on a fixed-size window of the input se￾quence. residual pathways and normalization. 2.3.1. Convolution Gated Local and Global Attention We apply both local and global attention with convolution gat￾ing in the TF-MossFormer separator to capture complementary short- and lon… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Introduction Speech separation (SS), which aims to isolate individual sources from a mixture, is a fundamental challenge in audio processing. Recent research reveals that effective modeling re- quires capturing both short-range continuity, such as harmonic structures and phoneme-level transitions, and long-range group- ing, including speaker identity cons...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    , Cusing a deep learning model

    The TF-MossFormer Model Given a speech mixturex= PC i=1 si, our goal is to estimate theCindividual sourcess i ∈R 1×L, i= 1,2, . . . , Cusing a deep learning model. The proposed TF-MossFormer adopts the dual-path time–frequency separation paradigm [12], preserv- ing the encoder–separator–decoder architecture. Unlike time- domain approaches that operate on ...

  3. [3]

    Dataset & Experimental Setup We validated our proposed TF-MossFormer on the widely-used WSJ0-2mix dataset, which benchmarks monaural speech sepa- ration

    Experiments 3.1. Dataset & Experimental Setup We validated our proposed TF-MossFormer on the widely-used WSJ0-2mix dataset, which benchmarks monaural speech sepa- ration. The dataset is comprised of three distinct sets: a training set of 20,000 ( 30 hours), a validation set of 5,000 ( 10 hours), and a test set of 3,000 ( 5 hours) two-speaker mixtures. The...

  4. [4]

    Conclusion We presented TF-MossFormer, a hybrid time–frequency trans- former that combines adaptive local attention with global at- tention for monaural speech separation. Our main contri- butions are: (1) content-aware sliding-window attention for adaptive spectro-temporal modeling; (2) an optimized lo- cal–global attention configuration; and (3) convolu...

  5. [5]

    Phase sensitive and recognition-boosted speech separation using deep recurrent neural networks,

    H. Erdogan, J. R. Hershey, S. Watanabe, and J. L. Roux, “Phase sensitive and recognition-boosted speech separation using deep recurrent neural networks,” inProc. ICASSP, 2015, p. 708–712

    2015

  6. [6]

    TasNet: time-domain audio separation network for real-time, single-channel speech separation,

    Y . Luo and N. Mesgarani, “TasNet: time-domain audio separation network for real-time, single-channel speech separation,” inProc. of ICASSP, 2018

    2018

  7. [7]

    Real-time single-channel dereverberation and separation with time-domain audio separation network,

    ——, “Real-time single-channel dereverberation and separation with time-domain audio separation network,” inProc. Inter- speech, 2018

    2018

  8. [8]

    Dual-Path Transformer Network: Direct context-aware modeling for end-to-end monaural speech separation,

    J. Chen, Q. Mao, and D. Liu, “Dual-Path Transformer Network: Direct context-aware modeling for end-to-end monaural speech separation,” inProc. of Interspeech, 2020

    2020

  9. [9]

    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 transactions on audio, speech, and language process- ing, vol. 27, no. 8, p. 1256–1266, 2019

    2019

  10. [10]

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

    Y . Luo, Z. Chen, and T. Yoshioka, “Dual-Path RNN: Efficient long sequence modeling for time-domain single-channel speech sepa- ration,” inProc. of ICASSP, 2020

    2020

  11. [11]

    Attention is all you need in speech separation,

    C. Subakan, M. Ravanelli, S. Cornell, M. Bronzi, and J. Zhong, “Attention is all you need in speech separation,” inProc. of ICASSP, 2021

    2021

  12. [12]

    MossFormer: Pushing the performance limit of monaural speech separation using gated single-head trans- former with convolution-augmented joint self-attentions,

    S. Zhao and B. Ma, “MossFormer: Pushing the performance limit of monaural speech separation using gated single-head trans- former with convolution-augmented joint self-attentions,” inProc. of ICASSP, 2023

    2023

  13. [13]

    MossFormer2: Combin- ing transformer and rnn-free recurrent network for enhanced time- domain monaural speech separation,

    S. Zhao, Y . Ma, C. Ni, C. Zhang, H. Wang, T. H. Nguyen, K. Zhou, J. Yip, D. Ng, and B. Ma, “MossFormer2: Combin- ing transformer and rnn-free recurrent network for enhanced time- domain monaural speech separation,” inProc. of ICASSP, 2024

    2024

  14. [14]

    Continuous speech separation with con- former,

    S. Chen, Y . Wu, Z. Chen, J. Wu, J. Li, T. Yoshioka, C. Wang, S. Liu, and M. Zhou, “Continuous speech separation with con- former,” inProc. of ICASSP, 2021, pp. 5749–5753

    2021

  15. [15]

    TFPSNet: Time-frequency do- main path scanning network for speech separation,

    L. Yang, W. Liu, and W. Wang, “TFPSNet: Time-frequency do- main path scanning network for speech separation,” inProc. of ICASSP, 2022

    2022

  16. [16]

    TF-GridNet: Making time-frequency domain models great again for monaural speaker separation,

    Z.-Q. Wang, S. Cornell, S. Choi, Y . Lee, B.-Y . Kim, and S. Watan- abe, “TF-GridNet: Making time-frequency domain models great again for monaural speaker separation,”arXiv:2209.03952, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    SPMamba: State-space model is all you need in speech separation,

    K. Li, G. Chen, R. Yang, and X. Hu, “SPMamba: State-space model is all you need in speech separation,”arXiv:2404.02063, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    TF- Locoformer: Transformer with local modeling by convolution for speech separation and enhancement,

    K. Saijo, G. Wichern, F. G. Germain, Z. Pan, and J. L. Roux, “TF- Locoformer: Transformer with local modeling by convolution for speech separation and enhancement,” in2024 18th International Workshop on Acoustic Signal Enhancement (IWAENC), 2024

    2024

  19. [19]

    Longformer: The long- document transformer,

    I. Beltagy, M. E. Peters, and A. Cohan, “Longformer: The long- document transformer,”arXiv:2004.05150, 2020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  20. [20]

    Big bird: Transformers for longer sequences,

    M. Zaheer, G. Guruganesh, K. A. Dubey, J. Ainslie, C. Alberti, S. Ontanon, P. Pham, A. Ravula, Q. Wang, L. Yanget al., “Big bird: Transformers for longer sequences,”Advances in Neural In- formation Processing Systems, vol. 33, 2020

    2020

  21. [21]

    Light- weight vision transformer with parallel local and global self- attention,

    N. Ebert, L. Reichardt, D. Stricker, and O. Wasenm ¨uller, “Light- weight vision transformer with parallel local and global self- attention,”arXiv:2307.09120, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Biformer: Vision transformer with bi-level routing attention,

    L. Zhu, X. Wang, Z. Ke, W. Zhang, and R. Lau, “Biformer: Vision transformer with bi-level routing attention,”Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR), 2023

    2023

  23. [23]

    Attention is all you need,

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

    2017

  24. [24]

    ESPnet-SE: End-to-end speech enhancement and separation toolkit designed for asr integration,

    C. Li, J. Shi, W. Zhang, A. S. Subramanian, X. Changet al., “ESPnet-SE: End-to-end speech enhancement and separation toolkit designed for asr integration,” inProc. SLT, 2021

    2021

  25. [25]

    Decoupled weight decay regulariza- tion,

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter, “Decoupled weight decay regulariza- tion,” inProc. ICLR, 2018

    2018

  26. [26]

    Speech separation using an asynchronous fully recurrent convolutional neural network,

    X. Hu, K. Li, W. Zhang, Y . Luo, J.-M. Lemercier, and T. Gerk- mann, “Speech separation using an asynchronous fully recurrent convolutional neural network,” inProc. of NeurIPS, 2021

    2021

  27. [27]

    Voice separation with an un- known number of multiple speakers,

    E. Nachmani, Y . Adi, and L. Wolf, “Voice separation with an un- known number of multiple speakers,” inProc. of ICML, 2020

    2020

  28. [28]

    A neural state-space model approach to efficient speech separation,

    C. Chen, C.-H. H. Yang, K. Li, Y . Hu, P.-J. Ku, and E. S. Chng, “A neural state-space model approach to efficient speech separation,” inProc. of Interspeech, 2023

    2023

  29. [29]

    SepMamba: State-space models for speaker separation using mamba,

    T. H. Avenstrup, B. Elek, I. L. M ´adi, A. B. Schin, M. Mørup, B. S. Jensen, and K. F. Olsen, “SepMamba: State-space models for speaker separation using mamba,” inProc. of ICASSP, 2024

    2024

  30. [30]

    Dual-path Mamba: Short and long-term bidirectional selective structured state space mod- els for speech separation,

    X. Jiang, C. Han, and N. Mesgarani, “Dual-path Mamba: Short and long-term bidirectional selective structured state space mod- els for speech separation,” inProc. of ICASSP, 2025

    2025

  31. [31]

    Wavesplit: End-to-end speech separation by speaker clustering,

    N. Zeghidour and D. Grangier, “Wavesplit: End-to-end speech separation by speaker clustering,”IEEE/ACM Trans. Audio. Speech, Lang. Process., vol. 29, 2021

    2021

  32. [32]

    QDPN - Quasi-dual-path Network for single-channel Speech Separation,

    J. Rixen and M. Renz, “QDPN - Quasi-dual-path Network for single-channel Speech Separation,” inProc. Interspeech 2022, 2022, pp. 5353–5357

    2022

  33. [33]

    Boosting unknown-number speaker separation with transformer decoder-based attractor,

    Y . Lee, S. Choi, B.-Y . Kim, Z.-Q. Wang, and S. Watanabe, “Boosting unknown-number speaker separation with transformer decoder-based attractor,” inProc. of ICASSP, 2024

    2024