Difference between revisions of "2005:Audio Melody Extraction Results"
From MIREX Wiki
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
|68.1% | |68.1% | ||
|71.4% | |71.4% | ||
| − | + | !71.4% | |
|32 | |32 | ||
|R | |R | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
|39.5% | |39.5% | ||
|1.56 | |1.56 | ||
| − | + | !68.6% | |
| − | + | !74.1% | |
|64.3% | |64.3% | ||
|10970 | |10970 | ||
| Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
'''Notes:''' | '''Notes:''' | ||
| − | Bold numbers are the best in each column | + | <small>Bold numbers are the best in each column</small> |
* Goto, Vincent, and Brossier did not perform voiced/unvoiced detection, so the starred results cannot be meaningfully compared to other systems. The Voicing rates are not 100% because for a few files these systems reported small numbers of no-voicing frames because the pitch tracking terminated early, and the remainder of the time was padded with zeros. | * Goto, Vincent, and Brossier did not perform voiced/unvoiced detection, so the starred results cannot be meaningfully compared to other systems. The Voicing rates are not 100% because for a few files these systems reported small numbers of no-voicing frames because the pitch tracking terminated early, and the remainder of the time was padded with zeros. | ||
† Scores for Brossier are artificially low due to an unresolved algorithmic issue. | † Scores for Brossier are artificially low due to an unresolved algorithmic issue. | ||
Revision as of 18:14, 29 July 2010
| Rank | Participant | A. Voicing Detection | B. Voicing False Alarm | C. Voicing d-prime | D. Raw Pitch Accuracy | E. Raw Chroma Accuracy | F. Overall Accuracy | Runtime (s) | Machine |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dressler, K. | 81.8% | 17.3% | 1.85 | 68.1% | 71.4% | 71.4% | 32 | R |
| 2 | Ryynänen & Klapuri | 90.3% | 39.5% | 1.56 | 68.6% | 74.1% | 64.3% | 10970 | L |
| 3 | Poliner & Ellis | 91.6% | 42.7% | 1.56 | 67.3% | 73.4% | 61.1% | 5471 | B 0 |
| 3 | Paiva, R. 2 | 68.8% | 23.2% | 1.22 | 58.5% | 62.0% | 61.1% | 45618 | Y |
| 5 | Marolt, M. | 72.7% | 32.4% | 1.06 | 60.1% | 67.1% | 59.5% | 12461 | F |
| 6 | Paiva, R. 1 | 83.4% | 55.8% | 0.83 | 62.7% | 66.7% | 57.8% | 44312 | G |
| 7 | Goto, M. | 99.9% * | 99.4% * | 0.59 * | 65.8% | 71.8% | 49.9% * | 211 | F |
| 8 | Vincent & Plumbley 1 | 96.1% * | 93.7% * | 0.23 * | 59.8% | 67.6% | 47.9% * | ? | G |
| 9 | Vincent & Plumbley 2 | 99.6% * | 96.4% * | 0.86 * | 59.6% | 71.1% | 46.4% * | 251 | G |
| 10 | Brossier, P. | 99.2% * † | 98.8% * † | 0.14 * † | 3.9% † | 8.1% † | 3.2% * † | 41 | B 0 |
Notes:
Bold numbers are the best in each column
- Goto, Vincent, and Brossier did not perform voiced/unvoiced detection, so the starred results cannot be meaningfully compared to other systems. The Voicing rates are not 100% because for a few files these systems reported small numbers of no-voicing frames because the pitch tracking terminated early, and the remainder of the time was padded with zeros.
† Scores for Brossier are artificially low due to an unresolved algorithmic issue.
