Difference between revisions of "2005:Audio Genre Classification Results"

From MIREX Wiki
Line 87: Line 87:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
<csv p=3>2009/audiocomposer/summary_audiocomposer.csv</csv>

Revision as of 15:03, 29 July 2010

Goal: To classify polyphonic music audio (in PCM format) into genre categories.

Dataset: Two sets of data were used: Magnatune and USPOP. The Magnatune dataset has a hierarchical genre taxonomy, while the USPOP categories are at a single level. The audio sampling rates used were either 44.1 KHz or 22.05 KHz (mono). More data information is in the following table:

Dataset Size (@ 44.1 KHz) Number of Training Files Number of Testing Files
Magnatune 34.3 GB 1005 510
USPOP 28.4 GB 940 474


OVERALL
Rank Participant Mean of Magnatune Hierarchical Classification
Accuracy and USPOP Raw Classification Accuracy
1 Bergstra, Casagrande & Eck (2) 82.34%
2 Bergstra, Casagrande & Eck (1) 81.77%
3 Mandel & Ellis 78.81%
4 West, K. 75.29%
5 Lidy & Rauber (SSD+RH) 75.27%
6 Pampalk, E. 75.14%
7 Lidy & Rauber (RP+SSD) 74.78%
8 Lidy & Rauber (RP+SSD+RH) 74.58%
9 Scaringella, N. 73.11%
10 Ahrendt, P. 71.55%
11 Burred, J. 62.63%
12 Soares, V. 60.98%
13 Tzanetakis, G. 60.72%


Magnatune Dataset
Rank Participant Hierarchical Classification Accuracy Normalized Hierarchical Classification Accuracy Raw Classification Accuracy Normalized Raw Classification Accuracy Runtime (s) Machine Confusion Matrix Files
1 Bergstra, Casagrande & Eck (2) 77.75% 73.04% 75.10% 69.49% -- -- BCE_2_MTeval.txt
2 Bergstra, Casagrande & Eck (1) 77.25% 72.13% 74.71% 68.73% 23400 B0 BCE_1_MTeval.txt
3 Mandel & Ellis 71.96% 69.63% 67.65% 63.99% 8729 R ME_MTeval.txt
4 West, K. 71.67% 68.33% 68.43% 63.87% 43327 B4 W_MTeval.txt
5 Lidy & Rauber (RP+SSD) 71.08% 70.90% 67.65% 66.85% 6372 B1 LR_RP+SSD_MTeval.txt
6 Lidy & Rauber (RP+SSD+RH) 70.88% 70.52% 67.25% 66.27% 6372 B1 LR_RP+SSD+RH_MTeval.txt
7 Lidy & Rauber (SSD+RH) 70.78% 69.31% 67.65% 65.54% 6372 B1 LR_SSD+RH_MTeval.txt
8 Scaringella, N. 70.47% 72.30% 66.14% 67.12% 22740 G SN_MTeval.txt
9 Pampalk, E. 69.90% 70.91% 66.47% 66.26% 3312 B0 P_MTeval.txt
10 Ahrendt, P. 64.61% 61.40% 60.98% 57.15% 4920 B1 A_MTeval.txt
11 Burred, J. 59.22% 61.96% 54.12% 55.68% 12483 B2 B_MTeval.txt
12 Tzanetakis, G. 58.14% 53.47% 55.49% 50.39% 1312 B0 T_MTeval.txt
13 Soares, V. 55.29% 60.73% 49.41% 53.54% 23880 Y SV_MTeval.txt
14 Li, M. TO * -- -- -- -- -- --
15 Chen & Gao DNC * -- -- -- -- -- --
Participant Mean Accuracy
ANO 41.77%
BP1 55.66%
BP2 54.76%
CL1 60.97%
CL2 60.03%
GLR1 55.34%
GLR2 45.92%
GP 48.85%
GT1 43.69%
GT2 51.48%
HNOS1 43.33%
HNOS2 15.84%
HNOS3 42.24%
HNOS4 29.04%
HW1 56.35%
HW2 53.10%
LZG 54.40%
MTG1 54.73%
MTG2 62.05%
MTG3 48.12%
MTG4 48.20%
MTG5 49.75%
MTG6 50.36%
RK1 48.41%
SS 52.56%
TTOS 44.37%
VA1 53.57%
VA2 53.57%
XLZZG 53.54%
XZZ 57.18%

download these results as csv