Difference between revisions of "2005:Audio Drum Detection Results"

From MIREX Wiki
Line 56: Line 56:
 
{| border="1"
 
{| border="1"
 
|- style="background: yellow; text-align: center;"
 
|- style="background: yellow; text-align: center;"
! colspan="11" | KOEN TANGHE COLLECTION
+
! colspan="9" | KOEN TANGHE COLLECTION
 
|-style="background: yellow;"
 
|-style="background: yellow;"
! Rank !! Participant !! Total Average Classification F-measure !! Total Overall Onset Precision !! Total Overall Onset Recall !! Total Overall Onset F-measure !! BD Average F-measure !! HH Average F-measure !! SD Average F-measure !! Runtime (s) !! Machine 
+
! Rank !! Participant !! Total Average Classification F-measure !! Total Overall Onset Precision !! Total Overall Onset Recall !! Total Overall Onset F-measure !! BD Average F-measure !! HH Average F-measure !! SD Average F-measure
 
|-
 
|-
1 Yoshii, Goto, & Okuno 0.617 53.06% 66.30% 0.589 0.686 0.481 0.652   
+
|1 || Yoshii, Goto, & Okuno || 0.617 || 53.06% || 66.30% || 0.589 || 0.686 || 0.481 || 0.652   
 
|-
 
|-
2 Tanghe, Degroeve, & De Baets 3 0.546 52.67% 68.21% 0.594 0.613 0.485 0.525   
+
|2 || Tanghe, Degroeve, & De Baets 3 || 0.546 || 52.67% || 68.21% || 0.594 || 0.613 || 0.485 || 0.525   
 
|-
 
|-
3 Tanghe, Degroeve, & De Baets 4 0.541 51.90% 67.98% 0.589 0.612 0.479 0.523   
+
|3 || Tanghe, Degroeve, & De Baets 4 || 0.541 || 51.90% || 67.98% || 0.589 || 0.612 || 0.479 || 0.523   
 
|-
 
|-
4 Tanghe, Degroeve, & De Baets 1 0.533 47.48% 69.24% 0.577 0.602 0.467 0.511   
+
|4 || Tanghe, Degroeve, & De Baets 1 || 0.533 || 47.48% || 69.24% || 0.577 || 0.602 || 0.467 || 0.511   
 
|-
 
|-
5 Dittmar, C. 0.494 51.20% 51.51% 0.514 0.509 0.418 0.535   
+
|5 || Dittmar, C. || 0.494 || 51.20% || 51.51% || 0.514 || 0.509 || 0.418 || 0.535   
 
|-
 
|-
6 Paulus, J. 0.425 55.82% 55.10% 0.555 0.444 0.489 0.412   
+
|6 || Paulus, J. || 0.425 || 55.82% || 55.10% || 0.555 || 0.444 || 0.489 || 0.412   
 
|-
 
|-
7 Gillet & Richard 2 0.273 66.68% 28.22% 0.397 0.393 0.178 0.269   
+
|7 || Gillet & Richard 2 || 0.273 || 66.68% || 28.22% || 0.397 || 0.393 || 0.178 || 0.269   
 
|-
 
|-
8 Gillet & Richard 1 0.259 58.48% 26.11% 0.361 0.375 0.196  0.210  
+
|8 || Gillet & Richard 1 || 0.259 || 58.48% || 26.11% || 0.361 || 0.375 || 0.196|| 0.210  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|}
 
|}
Line 81: Line 81:
 
{| border="1"
 
{| border="1"
 
|- style="background: yellow; text-align: center;"
 
|- style="background: yellow; text-align: center;"
! colspan="11" | MASATAKA GOTO COLLECTION (50 songs from RWC Music Database: RWC-MDB-P-2001)  
+
! colspan="9" | MASATAKA GOTO COLLECTION (50 songs from RWC Music Database: RWC-MDB-P-2001)  
 
|-style="background: yellow;"
 
|-style="background: yellow;"
! Rank !! Participant !! Total Average Classification F-measure !! Total Overall Onset Precision !! Total Overall Onset Recall !! Total Overall Onset F-measure !! BD Average F-measure !! HH Average F-measure !! SD Average F-measure !! Runtime (s) !! Machine 
+
! Rank !! Participant !! Total Average Classification F-measure !! Total Overall Onset Precision !! Total Overall Onset Recall !! Total Overall Onset F-measure !! BD Average F-measure !! HH Average F-measure !! SD Average F-measure  
 
|-
 
|-
1 Yoshii, Goto, & Okuno 0.716 76.13% 69.16% 0.725 0.776 0.661 0.710   
+
|1 || Yoshii, Goto, & Okuno || 0.716 || 76.13% || 69.16% || 0.725 || 0.776 || 0.661 || 0.710   
 
|-
 
|-
2 Tanghe, Degroeve, & De Baets 4 0.685 72.32% 75.83% 0.740 0.766 0.691 0.599   
+
|2 || Tanghe, Degroeve, & De Baets 4 || 0.685 || 72.32% || 75.83% || 0.740 || 0.766 || 0.691 || 0.599   
 
|-
 
|-
3 Tanghe, Degroeve, & De Baets 3 0.683 72.74% 75.65% 0.742 0.763 0.701 0.585   
+
|3 || Tanghe, Degroeve, & De Baets 3 || 0.683 || 72.74% || 75.65% || 0.742 || 0.763 || 0.701 || 0.585   
 
|-
 
|-
4 Tanghe, Degroeve, & De Baets 1 0.673 69.86% 77.12% 0.733 0.753 0.693 0.574   
+
|4 || Tanghe, Degroeve, & De Baets 1 || 0.673 || 69.86% || 77.12% || 0.733 || 0.753 || 0.693 || 0.574   
 
|-
 
|-
5 Gillet & Richard 2 0.630 81.60% 53.00% 0.643 0.774 0.517 0.599   
+
|5 || Gillet & Richard 2 || 0.630 || 81.60% || 53.00% || 0.643 || 0.774 || 0.517 || 0.599   
 
|-
 
|-
6 Dittmar, C. 0.617 71.37%  67.78% 0.695 0.631 0.675 0.544   
+
|6 || Dittmar, C. || 0.617 || 71.37%  67.78% || 0.695 || 0.631 || 0.675 || 0.544   
 
|-
 
|-
7 Paulus, J. 0.597 62.90% 75.47% 0.686 0.648 0.695 0.449   
+
|7 || Paulus, J. || 0.597 || 62.90% || 75.47% || 0.686 || 0.648 || 0.695 || 0.449   
 
|-
 
|-
8 Gillet & Richard 1 0.544 76.11% 48.80% 0.595 0.715 0.479 0.436  
+
|8 || Gillet & Richard 1 || 0.544 || 76.11% || 48.80% || 0.595 || 0.715 || 0.479 || 0.436  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|}
 
|}
 
<br>
 
<br>

Revision as of 23:13, 26 July 2010

Goal: To detect the occurences of drum events in polyphonic audio.

Dataset: At least 50 files of both live and sequenced music, with many genres encompassed and various degrees of drum audio contained in the files. Three collections of music were used: Christian Dittmar (CD), Koen Tanghe (KT) and Masataka Goto (MG). Participants were evaluated against music from each individual collection, and then the three collection scores are averaged to produce a composite score.

OVERALL
Rank Participant Total Average Classification F-measure Total Overall Onset Precision Total Overall Onset Recall Total Overall Onset F-measure BD Average F-measure HH Average F-measure SD Average F-measure Runtime (s) Machine
1 Yoshii, Goto, & Okuno 0.670 64.92% 67.02% 0.659 0.728 0.574 0.702 8534 B 0
2 Tanghe, Degroeve, & De Baets 3 0.611 63.30% 71.19% 0.670 0.688 0.601 0.555 1337 Y
3 Tanghe, Degroeve, & De Baets 4 0.609 62.57% 71.09% 0.666 0.686 0.590 0.562 1342 Y
4 Tanghe, Degroeve, & De Baets 1 0.599 60.02% 72.45% 0.657 0.677 0.588 0.542 1350 Y
5 Dittmar, C. 0.588 65.68% 63.38% 0.645 0.606 0.585 0.581 673 R
6 Paulus, J. 0.499 59.61% 64.86% 0.621 0.527 0.587 0.430 1137 L
7 Gillet & Richard 2 0.443 77.09% 40.63% 0.532 0.598 0.334 0.428 21248 F
8 Gillet & Richard 1 0.391 69.84% 37.98% 0.492 0.533 0.343 0.317 21997 F


CHRISTIAN DITTMAR COLLECTION
Rank Participant Total Average Classification F-measure Total Overall Onset Precision Total Overall Onset Recall Total Overall Onset F-measure BD Average F-measure HH Average F-measure SD Average F-measure
1 Dittmar, C. 0.753 77.73% 72.56% 0.751 0.783 0.696 0.790
2 Yoshii, Goto, & Okuno 0.690 64.25% 62.75% 0.660 0.714 0.533 0.811
3 Tanghe, Degroeve, & De Baets 3 0.595 61.85% 64.85% 0.633 0.685 0.568 0.548
4 Tanghe, Degroeve, & De Baets 4 0.589 62.45% 64.22% 0.628 0.668 0.555 0.559
5 Tanghe, Degroeve, & De Baets 1 0.580 57.78% 65.94% 0.616 0.669 0.553 0.533
6 Paulus, J. 0.440 55.82% 54.36% 0.551 0.430 0.497 0.424
7 Gillet & Richard 2 0.401 77.22% 30.16% 0.434 0.658 0.156 0.364
8 Gillet & Richard 1 0.339 66.33% 30.57% 0.418 0.466 0.279 0.265


KOEN TANGHE COLLECTION
Rank Participant Total Average Classification F-measure Total Overall Onset Precision Total Overall Onset Recall Total Overall Onset F-measure BD Average F-measure HH Average F-measure SD Average F-measure
1 Yoshii, Goto, & Okuno 0.617 53.06% 66.30% 0.589 0.686 0.481 0.652
2 Tanghe, Degroeve, & De Baets 3 0.546 52.67% 68.21% 0.594 0.613 0.485 0.525
3 Tanghe, Degroeve, & De Baets 4 0.541 51.90% 67.98% 0.589 0.612 0.479 0.523
4 Tanghe, Degroeve, & De Baets 1 0.533 47.48% 69.24% 0.577 0.602 0.467 0.511
5 Dittmar, C. 0.494 51.20% 51.51% 0.514 0.509 0.418 0.535
6 Paulus, J. 0.425 55.82% 55.10% 0.555 0.444 0.489 0.412
7 Gillet & Richard 2 0.273 66.68% 28.22% 0.397 0.393 0.178 0.269
8 Gillet & Richard 1 0.259 58.48% 26.11% 0.361 0.375 0.196 0.210


MASATAKA GOTO COLLECTION (50 songs from RWC Music Database: RWC-MDB-P-2001)
Rank Participant Total Average Classification F-measure Total Overall Onset Precision Total Overall Onset Recall Total Overall Onset F-measure BD Average F-measure HH Average F-measure SD Average F-measure
1 Yoshii, Goto, & Okuno 0.716 76.13% 69.16% 0.725 0.776 0.661 0.710
2 Tanghe, Degroeve, & De Baets 4 0.685 72.32% 75.83% 0.740 0.766 0.691 0.599
3 Tanghe, Degroeve, & De Baets 3 0.683 72.74% 75.65% 0.742 0.763 0.701 0.585
4 Tanghe, Degroeve, & De Baets 1 0.673 69.86% 77.12% 0.733 0.753 0.693 0.574
5 Gillet & Richard 2 0.630 81.60% 53.00% 0.643 0.774 0.517 0.599
6 Dittmar, C. 0.617 71.37% 67.78% 0.695 0.631 0.675 0.544
7 Paulus, J. 0.597 62.90% 75.47% 0.686 0.648 0.695 0.449
8 Gillet & Richard 1 0.544 76.11% 48.80% 0.595 0.715 0.479 0.436