2005:Audio Tempo Extraction Results - Revision history

Singh14: /* Results */

2010-08-02T22:20:08Z

‎Results

Show changes

Singh14 at 16:21, 2 August 2010

2010-08-02T16:21:59Z

Singh14 at 16:19, 2 August 2010

2010-08-02T16:19:48Z

Singh14: /* McNemar's Test Results */

2010-08-02T16:18:01Z

‎McNemar's Test Results

Singh14: /* Results */

2010-07-31T16:25:15Z

‎Results

Singh14: /* Results */

2010-07-31T16:23:48Z

‎Results

Singh14 at 16:17, 31 July 2010

2010-07-31T16:17:48Z

Singh14 at 16:17, 31 July 2010

2010-07-31T16:17:16Z

Singh14: /* Introduction */

2010-07-30T00:31:28Z

‎Introduction

Singh14: Created page with '==Introduction== '''Goal:''' The comparison and evaluation of current methods for the extraction of tempo from musical audio '''Dataset:''' 140 wav files, 354 Megabytes
{|…'

2010-07-30T00:30:54Z

Created page with '==Introduction== '''Goal:''' The comparison and evaluation of current methods for the extraction of tempo from musical audio '''Dataset:''' 140 wav files, 354 Megabytes <br> {|…'

New page

==Introduction==

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

'''Dataset:''' 140 wav files, 354 Megabytes
<br>
{| border="1" cellspacing="0"
|- style="background: yellow; text-align: center;"
!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.

{| border="1" cellspacing="0"
|- style="background: yellow; text-align: center;"
!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
|----
|}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ==Introduction==
-===Goal:=== The comparison and evaluation of current methods for the extraction of tempo from musical audio
+These are the results for the 2005 running of the Audio Tempo Extraction task.
-===Dataset:=== 140 wav files, 354 Megabytes
+===Goal===
 ==Results==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ==Introduction==
-'''Goal:''' The comparison and evaluation of current methods for the extraction of tempo from musical audio
+===Goal:=== The comparison and evaluation of current methods for the extraction of tempo from musical audio
-'''Dataset:''' 140 wav files, 354 Megabytes
+===Dataset:=== 140 wav files, 354 Megabytes
 ==Results==

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:17, 31 July 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Introduction==		==Introduction==
−
	'''Goal:''' The comparison and evaluation of current methods for the extraction of tempo from musical audio		'''Goal:''' The comparison and evaluation of current methods for the extraction of tempo from musical audio

@@ Line 170: / Line 170: @@
 {| border="1" cellspacing="0"
 |- style="background: yellow; text-align: center;"
 !Tzanetakis, G.
 !Gouyon &amp; Dixon (3)

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 |----
 |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)
 |90.71%
@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 |----
 |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)
 |90.71%
@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 |----
 |4
-|https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/gouyon.pdf Gouyon &amp; Dixon (1)]
+|[https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/gouyon.pdf Gouyon &amp; Dixon (1)]
 |0.670 (0.252)
 |92.14%
@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 |----
 |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)
 |95.71%
@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
 |----
 |6
-|https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/gouyon.pdf Gouyon &amp; Dixon (2)]
+|[https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/gouyon.pdf Gouyon &amp; Dixon (2)]
 |0.649 (0.253)
 |92.14%
@@ Line 86: / Line 86: @@
 |----
 |7
-|https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/gouyon.pdf Gouyon &amp; Dixon (4)]
+|[https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/gouyon.pdf Gouyon &amp; Dixon (4)]
 |0.645 (0.294)
 |87.14%
@@ Line 97: / Line 97: @@
 |----
 |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)
 |86.43%
@@ Line 108: / Line 108: @@
 |----
 |9
-|https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/davies.pdf Davies &amp; Brossier]
+|[https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/davies.pdf Davies &amp; Brossier]
 |0.628 (0.284)
 |86.43%
@@ Line 119: / Line 119: @@
 |----
 |10
-|https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/gouyon.pdf Gouyon &amp; Dixon (3)]
+|[https://www.music-ir.org/mirex/abstracts/2005/gouyon.pdf Gouyon &amp; Dixon (3)]
 |0.607 (0.287)
 |87.14%
@@ Line 130: / Line 130: @@
 |----
 |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)
 |90.71%
@@ Line 141: / Line 141: @@
 |----
 |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)
 |80.71%
@@ Line 152: / Line 152: @@
 |----
 |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)
 |71.43%

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 '''Dataset:''' 140 wav files, 354 Megabytes
 <br>
 {| border="1" cellspacing="0"
@@ Line 162: / Line 164: @@
 |----
 |}
 ==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.

2005:Audio Tempo Extraction Results - Revision history

Singh14: /* Results */

Singh14 at 16:21, 2 August 2010

Singh14 at 16:19, 2 August 2010

Singh14: /* McNemar's Test Results */

Singh14: /* Results */

Singh14: /* Results */

Singh14 at 16:17, 31 July 2010

Singh14 at 16:17, 31 July 2010

Singh14: /* Introduction */

Singh14: Created page with '==Introduction== '''Goal:''' The comparison and evaluation of current methods for the extraction of tempo from musical audio '''Dataset:''' 140 wav files, 354 Megabytes {|…'

Singh14: Created page with '==Introduction== '''Goal:''' The comparison and evaluation of current methods for the extraction of tempo from musical audio '''Dataset:''' 140 wav files, 354 Megabytes
{|…'