Papers for
audio signal processing engineers
Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.
Audio models tested for accuracy in stating numeric acoustic values
AcoustiClaim: A Numeric Claim Benchmark with Instrument Ground Truth
Abstract: Audio language models state numbers for acoustic quantities, and neither human opinion nor a judge model says whether such a number is true of the signal. AcoustiClaim extracts each numeric claim from free text, scores it against the instrument that defines the quantity, and classes each quantity by where its reference can be read. Four open-weight systems and one closed model, asked for ten quantities five ways on two corpora, fill 207 cells. Of these, 49 emit fewer than five distinct values, and eight of the 158 cells that can be ranked exceed a rank correlation of 0.3, the bar we set, three with an interval clear of it, five of them one closed model reading pitch. Error sits at or above a constant-predictor floor in every ranked cell but three. The reference decoder we train declines the five voice quantities in prose on 95% of mixtures, with nothing withheld, and states them on the clean twins, reproducing its targets' rule from audio alone. With a calibrated threshold, withholding lowers error on all ten quantities on the mixtures in the mean and on eight at every split, against at most 0.6% from a random selector. A linear baseline orders errors at least as well as ours. F0 s.d. and shimmer stay above the constant floor.
Speaker distance estimates improve with few real labeled examples
Few-Shot Calibration for Sim-to-Real Single-Channel Speaker Distance Estimation
Abstract: Speaker distance estimators are trained almost exclusively on simulated room acoustics, because real recordings annotated with the true talker-to-microphone distance are scarce. We show that models trained this way transfer poorly. On three real corpora we evaluate, simply predicting the average distance of the corpus is more accurate than any learned model. Then, we ask how few labelled real utterances are needed to make a frozen, synthetic-trained estimator useful, and study post-hoc calibration maps that rescale its output without gradients or retraining. An analysis of the achievable error shows that what the calibration is not limited by the absolute accuracy of the estimator, but how well it orders utterances by distance, since a constant bias or a wrong output scale is removed exactly by the calibration itself. Balancing this against the cost of estimating each coefficient from few samples yields a criterion that accounts for which map wins on which corpus and at which annotation budget, together with a shrinkage variant that requires no hard decision. Our findings suggest selecting synthetic checkpoints by linear correlation with true distances rather than by absolute error. Code, datasets, and analysis are available at https://github.com/michaelneri/audio-distance-estimation.