Difference between revisions of "2005:Audio Tempo Extraction Results"

From MIREX Wiki
(Results)
(Results)
Line 31: Line 31:
 
|----
 
|----
 
|2
 
|2
|https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/uhle.pdf Uhle, C. (1)]
+
|[https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/uhle.pdf Uhle, C. (1)]
 
|0.675 (0.273)
 
|0.675 (0.273)
 
|90.71%
 
|90.71%
Line 42: Line 42:
 
|----
 
|----
 
|3
 
|3
|https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/uhle.pdf Uhle, C. (2)]
+
|[https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/uhle.pdf Uhle, C. (2)]
 
|0.675 (0.272)
 
|0.675 (0.272)
 
|90.71%
 
|90.71%
Line 53: Line 53:
 
|----
 
|----
 
|4
 
|4
|https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/gouyon.pdf Gouyon & Dixon (1)]
+
|[https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/gouyon.pdf Gouyon & Dixon (1)]
 
|0.670 (0.252)
 
|0.670 (0.252)
 
|92.14%
 
|92.14%
Line 64: Line 64:
 
|----
 
|----
 
|5
 
|5
|https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/peeters.pdf Peeters, G.]
+
|[https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/peeters.pdf Peeters, G.]
 
|0.656 (0.223)
 
|0.656 (0.223)
 
|95.71%
 
|95.71%
Line 75: Line 75:
 
|----
 
|----
 
|6
 
|6
|https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/gouyon.pdf Gouyon & Dixon (2)]
+
|[https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/gouyon.pdf Gouyon & Dixon (2)]
 
|0.649 (0.253)
 
|0.649 (0.253)
 
|92.14%
 
|92.14%
Line 86: Line 86:
 
|----
 
|----
 
|7
 
|7
|https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/gouyon.pdf Gouyon & Dixon (4)]
+
|[https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/gouyon.pdf Gouyon & Dixon (4)]
 
|0.645 (0.294)
 
|0.645 (0.294)
 
|87.14%
 
|87.14%
Line 97: Line 97:
 
|----
 
|----
 
|8
 
|8
|https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/eck.pdf Eck, D.]
+
|[https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/eck.pdf Eck, D.]
 
|0.644 (0.300)
 
|0.644 (0.300)
 
|86.43%
 
|86.43%
Line 108: Line 108:
 
|----
 
|----
 
|9
 
|9
|https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/davies.pdf Davies & Brossier]
+
|[https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/davies.pdf Davies & Brossier]
 
|0.628 (0.284)
 
|0.628 (0.284)
 
|86.43%
 
|86.43%
Line 119: Line 119:
 
|----
 
|----
 
|10
 
|10
|https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/gouyon.pdf Gouyon & Dixon (3)]
+
|[https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/gouyon.pdf Gouyon & Dixon (3)]
 
|0.607 (0.287)
 
|0.607 (0.287)
 
|87.14%
 
|87.14%
Line 130: Line 130:
 
|----
 
|----
 
|11
 
|11
|https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/sethares.pdf Sethares, W.]
+
|[https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/sethares.pdf Sethares, W.]
 
|0.597 (0.252)
 
|0.597 (0.252)
 
|90.71%
 
|90.71%
Line 141: Line 141:
 
|----
 
|----
 
|12
 
|12
|https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/davies.pdf Brossier, P.]
+
|[https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/davies.pdf Brossier, P.]
 
|0.583 (0.333)
 
|0.583 (0.333)
 
|80.71%
 
|80.71%
Line 152: Line 152:
 
|----
 
|----
 
|13
 
|13
|https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/tzanetakis.pdf Tzanetakis, G.]
+
|[https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/tzanetakis.pdf Tzanetakis, G.]
 
|0.538 (0.359)
 
|0.538 (0.359)
 
|71.43%
 
|71.43%

Revision as of 11:25, 31 July 2010

Introduction

Goal: The comparison and evaluation of current methods for the extraction of tempo from musical audio

Dataset: 140 wav files, 354 Megabytes

Results


Rank Participant Score (std. deviation) At Least One Tempo Correct Both Tempos Correct At Least One Phase Correct Both Phases Correct Mean Absolute Difference of Scored Saliences Runtime (s) Machine
1 Alonso, David, & Richard 0.689 (0.231) 95.00% 55.71% 25.00% 5.00% 0.239 2875 G
2 Uhle, C. (1) 0.675 (0.273) 90.71% 59.29% 32.14% 7.14% 0.222 1160 F
3 Uhle, C. (2) 0.675 (0.272) 90.71% 59.29% 32.86% 6.43% 0.222 2621 F
4 Gouyon & Dixon (1) 0.670 (0.252) 92.14% 56.43% 40.71% 7.86% 0.311 3303 G
5 Peeters, G. 0.656 (0.223) 95.71% 47.86% 27.86% 4.29% 0.258 2159 R
6 Gouyon & Dixon (2) 0.649 (0.253) 92.14% 51.43% 37.14% 5.71% 0.305 2050 G
7 Gouyon & Dixon (4) 0.645 (0.294) 87.14% 55.71% 48.57% 10.71% 0.313 1357 G
8 Eck, D. 0.644 (0.300) 86.43% 53.57% 37.14% 5.71% 0.230 1665 Y
9 Davies & Brossier 0.628 (0.284) 86.43% 48.57% 26.43% 4.29% 0.224 1005 R
10 Gouyon & Dixon (3) 0.607 (0.287) 87.14% 47.14% 36.43% 6.43% 0.294 1388 R
11 Sethares, W. 0.597 (0.252) 90.71% 37.86% 30.71% 0.71% 0.239 70975 Y
12 Brossier, P. 0.583 (0.333) 80.71% 51.43% 28.57% 2.14% 0.223 180 B 0
13 Tzanetakis, G. 0.538 (0.359) 71.43% 50.71% 28.57% 3.57% 0.295 7173 B 0

McNemar's Test Results

Statistical probability that algorithms have same error function: Note: Results of less than 5% indicate significant differences, results of 1% or less indicate highly significant differences.

Tzanetakis, G. Gouyon & Dixon (3) Gouyon & Dixon (1) Gouyon & Dixon (0) Brossier, P. Uhle, C. (1) Uhle, C. (0) Sethares, B Peeters, G Eck, D. Davies, M. Alonso, David, & Richard
Tzanetakis, G. n/a
Gouyon & Dixon (3) 17.44% n/a
Gouyon & Dixon (1) 50.00% 19.58% n/a
Gouyon & Dixon (0) 12.15% 50.00% 4.61% n/a
Brossier, P. 50.00% 23.54% 55.31% 20.05% n/a
Uhle, C. (1) 2.88% 26.64% 6.76% 31.36% 5.41% n/a
Uhle, C. (0) 2.88% 26.64% 6.31% 30.89% 5.86% 75.00% n/a
Sethares, B. 0.99% 0.02% 0.27% 0.02% 1.24% 0.01% 0.01% n/a
Peeters, G. 34.70% 7.19% 29.83% 6.32% 30.73% 2.40% 2.40% 2.97% n/a
Eck, D. 32.58% 38.04% 38.54% 32.20% 38.54% 12.15% 12.15% 0.41% 18.32% n/a
Davies, M. 38.77% 7.17% 33.59% 6.31% 33.89% 2.67% 2.67% 1.38% 50.00% 21.35% n/a
Alsonso, David, & Richard 18.02% 56.12% 23.99% 50.00% 23.99% 26.64% 26.64% 0.04% 7.62% 39.39% 6.07% n/a