2017
DOI: 10.1007/s11042-017-4456-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fusing similarity functions for cover song identification

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
34
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
34
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Results on Da-TACOS 2DFTM [17] 0.275 155 SiMPle [18] 0.332 142 Dmax [14] 0.322 132 Qmax [10] 0.365 113 Qmax* [30] 0.373 104 EarlyFusion [12] 0.426 116 LateFusion [14] 0.454 177 MOVE w/ d = 4 k (ours) 0.489 43 MOVE w/ d = 16 k (ours) 0.506 42 Results on YTC SiMPle [18] 0.591 8 2DFTM sequences [29] 0.648 8 InNet [19] 0.660 6 SuCo-DTW [31] 0.800 3 CQT-TPPNet [20] 0.859 3 MOVE w/ d = 16 k (ours) 0.885 3 Table 2. Comparison of state-of-the-art VI systems (best results are highlighted in bold).…”
Section: Map Mr1mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Results on Da-TACOS 2DFTM [17] 0.275 155 SiMPle [18] 0.332 142 Dmax [14] 0.322 132 Qmax [10] 0.365 113 Qmax* [30] 0.373 104 EarlyFusion [12] 0.426 116 LateFusion [14] 0.454 177 MOVE w/ d = 4 k (ours) 0.489 43 MOVE w/ d = 16 k (ours) 0.506 42 Results on YTC SiMPle [18] 0.591 8 2DFTM sequences [29] 0.648 8 InNet [19] 0.660 6 SuCo-DTW [31] 0.800 3 CQT-TPPNet [20] 0.859 3 MOVE w/ d = 16 k (ours) 0.885 3 Table 2. Comparison of state-of-the-art VI systems (best results are highlighted in bold).…”
Section: Map Mr1mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Results on Youtube DPLA [2] 0.525 0.132 9.43 2420s SiMPle [15] 0.591 0.140 7.91 18.7s Fingerprinting [16] 0.648 0.145 8.27 -SuCo-DTW [17] 0.800 0.180 3.42 4.59s Ki-CNN [8] 0.656 0.155 6.26 0.35ms TPPNet [9] 0.859 0.188 2.85 0.04ms CQT-Net 0.917 0.192 2.50 0.04ms Results on Covers80 NCP-WIDI [18] 0.645 ---CRP [3] 0.544 0.061 --Fusing [19] 0.625 0.071 --Ki-CNN [8] 0.506 0.068 16.4 0.55ms TPPNet [9] 0.744 0.086 6.88 0.06ms CQT-Net 0.840 0.091 3.85 0.06ms Results on Mazurkas DTW [15] 0.882 0.949 4.05 -NCD [20] 0.767 ---Compression [21] 0.795 ---Fingerprinting [22] 0.819 ---SiMPle [15] 0.880 0.952 2.33 -SuCo-repeat [17] 0.850 0.940 2.77 -2DFM [4] 0 Table 1. Performance on different datasets (-indicates the results are not shown in original works).…”
Section: Mr1 Timementioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, Tzanetakis et al proposed pitch histogram to represent tonality [Tzanetakis et al, 2003]. Chroma and its variants were extensively deployed to this task [Ellis and Poliner, 2007;Serrà et al, 2008;Grosche and Müller, 2012;Silva et al, 2016;Cheng et al, 2017].…”
Section: Audio Featurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…For sequential representations, dynamic programming was a routinely used approach to measure the similarity of sequential descriptors. Through searching the optimal correspondences between two sequential representations, these algorithms helped reduce the impacts of local structure variations and thus achieved high precision [Bello, 2007;Serrà et al, 2008;Martin et al, 2012;Cheng et al, 2017]. For other approaches, though they did not use dynamic programming explicitly, they computed cross-similarity between the sequences and required comparable complexity [Grosche and…”
Section: Similarity Measurementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation