-
Hierarchical Label Propagation: A Model-Size-Dependent Performance Booster for AudioSet Tagging
Authors:
Ludovic Tuncay,
Etienne Labbé,
Thomas Pellegrini
Abstract:
AudioSet is one of the most used and largest datasets in audio tagging, containing about 2 million audio samples that are manually labeled with 527 event categories organized into an ontology. However, the annotations contain inconsistencies, particularly where categories that should be labeled as positive according to the ontology are frequently mislabeled as negative. To address this issue, we a…
▽ More
AudioSet is one of the most used and largest datasets in audio tagging, containing about 2 million audio samples that are manually labeled with 527 event categories organized into an ontology. However, the annotations contain inconsistencies, particularly where categories that should be labeled as positive according to the ontology are frequently mislabeled as negative. To address this issue, we apply Hierarchical Label Propagation (HLP), which propagates labels up the ontology hierarchy, resulting in a mean increase in positive labels per audio clip from 1.98 to 2.39 and affecting 109 out of the 527 classes. Our results demonstrate that HLP provides performance benefits across various model architectures, including convolutional neural networks (PANN's CNN6 and ConvNeXT) and transformers (PaSST), with smaller models showing more improvements. Finally, on FSD50K, another widely used dataset, models trained on AudioSet with HLP consistently outperformed those trained without HLP. Our source code will be made available on GitHub.
△ Less
Submitted 26 March, 2025;
originally announced March 2025.
-
Multilingual Audio Captioning using machine translated data
Authors:
Matéo Cousin,
Étienne Labbé,
Thomas Pellegrini
Abstract:
Automated Audio Captioning (AAC) systems attempt to generate a natural language sentence, a caption, that describes the content of an audio recording, in terms of sound events. Existing datasets provide audio-caption pairs, with captions written in English only. In this work, we explore multilingual AAC, using machine translated captions. We translated automatically two prominent AAC datasets, Aud…
▽ More
Automated Audio Captioning (AAC) systems attempt to generate a natural language sentence, a caption, that describes the content of an audio recording, in terms of sound events. Existing datasets provide audio-caption pairs, with captions written in English only. In this work, we explore multilingual AAC, using machine translated captions. We translated automatically two prominent AAC datasets, AudioCaps and Clotho, from English to French, German and Spanish. We trained and evaluated monolingual systems in the four languages, on AudioCaps and Clotho. In all cases, the models achieved similar performance, about 75% CIDEr on AudioCaps and 43% on Clotho. In French, we acquired manual captions of the AudioCaps eval subset. The French system, trained on the machine translated version of AudioCaps, achieved significantly better results on the manual eval subset, compared to the English system for which we automatically translated the outputs to French. This advocates in favor of building systems in a target language instead of simply translating to a target language the English captions from the English system. Finally, we built a multilingual model, which achieved results in each language comparable to each monolingual system, while using much less parameters than using a collection of monolingual systems.
△ Less
Submitted 14 September, 2023;
originally announced September 2023.
-
CoNeTTE: An efficient Audio Captioning system leveraging multiple datasets with Task Embedding
Authors:
Étienne Labbé,
Thomas Pellegrini,
Julien Pinquier
Abstract:
Automated Audio Captioning (AAC) involves generating natural language descriptions of audio content, using encoder-decoder architectures. An audio encoder produces audio embeddings fed to a decoder, usually a Transformer decoder, for caption generation. In this work, we describe our model, which novelty, compared to existing models, lies in the use of a ConvNeXt architecture as audio encoder, adap…
▽ More
Automated Audio Captioning (AAC) involves generating natural language descriptions of audio content, using encoder-decoder architectures. An audio encoder produces audio embeddings fed to a decoder, usually a Transformer decoder, for caption generation. In this work, we describe our model, which novelty, compared to existing models, lies in the use of a ConvNeXt architecture as audio encoder, adapted from the vision domain to audio classification. This model, called CNext-trans, achieved state-of-the-art scores on the AudioCaps (AC) dataset and performed competitively on Clotho (CL), while using four to forty times fewer parameters than existing models. We examine potential biases in the AC dataset due to its origin from AudioSet by investigating unbiased encoder's impact on performance. Using the well-known PANN's CNN14, for instance, as an unbiased encoder, we observed a 1.7% absolute reduction in SPIDEr score (where higher scores indicate better performance). To improve cross-dataset performance, we conducted experiments by combining multiple AAC datasets (AC, CL, MACS, WavCaps) for training. Although this strategy enhanced overall model performance across datasets, it still fell short compared to models trained specifically on a single target dataset, indicating the absence of a one-size-fits-all model. To mitigate performance gaps between datasets, we introduced a Task Embedding (TE) token, allowing the model to identify the source dataset for each input sample. We provide insights into the impact of these TEs on both the form (words) and content (sound event types) of the generated captions. The resulting model, named CoNeTTE, an unbiased CNext-trans model enriched with dataset-specific Task Embeddings, achieved SPIDEr scores of 44.1% and 30.5% on AC and CL, respectively. Code available: https://github.com/Labbeti/conette-audio-captioning.
△ Less
Submitted 1 September, 2023;
originally announced September 2023.
-
Killing two birds with one stone: Can an audio captioning system also be used for audio-text retrieval?
Authors:
Etienne Labbé,
Thomas Pellegrini,
Julien Pinquier
Abstract:
Automated Audio Captioning (AAC) aims to develop systems capable of describing an audio recording using a textual sentence. In contrast, Audio-Text Retrieval (ATR) systems seek to find the best matching audio recording(s) for a given textual query (Text-to-Audio) or vice versa (Audio-to-Text). These tasks require different types of systems: AAC employs a sequence-to-sequence model, while ATR utili…
▽ More
Automated Audio Captioning (AAC) aims to develop systems capable of describing an audio recording using a textual sentence. In contrast, Audio-Text Retrieval (ATR) systems seek to find the best matching audio recording(s) for a given textual query (Text-to-Audio) or vice versa (Audio-to-Text). These tasks require different types of systems: AAC employs a sequence-to-sequence model, while ATR utilizes a ranking model that compares audio and text representations within a shared projection subspace. However, this work investigates the relationship between AAC and ATR by exploring the ATR capabilities of an unmodified AAC system, without fine-tuning for the new task. Our AAC system consists of an audio encoder (ConvNeXt-Tiny) trained on AudioSet for audio tagging, and a transformer decoder responsible for generating sentences. For AAC, it achieves a high SPIDEr-FL score of 0.298 on Clotho and 0.472 on AudioCaps on average. For ATR, we propose using the standard Cross-Entropy loss values obtained for any audio/caption pair. Experimental results on the Clotho and AudioCaps datasets demonstrate decent recall values using this simple approach. For instance, we obtained a Text-to-Audio R@1 value of 0.382 for Au-dioCaps, which is above the current state-of-the-art method without external data. Interestingly, we observe that normalizing the loss values was necessary for Audio-to-Text retrieval.
△ Less
Submitted 29 August, 2023;
originally announced August 2023.
-
Adapting a ConvNeXt model to audio classification on AudioSet
Authors:
Thomas Pellegrini,
Ismail Khalfaoui-Hassani,
Etienne Labbé,
Timothée Masquelier
Abstract:
In computer vision, convolutional neural networks (CNN) such as ConvNeXt, have been able to surpass state-of-the-art transformers, partly thanks to depthwise separable convolutions (DSC). DSC, as an approximation of the regular convolution, has made CNNs more efficient in time and memory complexity without deteriorating their accuracy, and sometimes even improving it. In this paper, we first imple…
▽ More
In computer vision, convolutional neural networks (CNN) such as ConvNeXt, have been able to surpass state-of-the-art transformers, partly thanks to depthwise separable convolutions (DSC). DSC, as an approximation of the regular convolution, has made CNNs more efficient in time and memory complexity without deteriorating their accuracy, and sometimes even improving it. In this paper, we first implement DSC into the Pretrained Audio Neural Networks (PANN) family for audio classification on AudioSet, to show its benefits in terms of accuracy/model size trade-off. Second, we adapt the now famous ConvNeXt model to the same task. It rapidly overfits, so we report on techniques that improve the learning process. Our best ConvNeXt model reached 0.471 mean-average precision on AudioSet, which is better than or equivalent to recent large audio transformers, while using three times less parameters. We also achieved positive results in audio captioning and audio retrieval with this model. Our PyTorch source code and checkpoint models are available at https://github.com/topel/audioset-convnext-inf.
△ Less
Submitted 1 June, 2023;
originally announced June 2023.
-
Multitask learning in Audio Captioning: a sentence embedding regression loss acts as a regularizer
Authors:
Etienne Labbé,
Julien Pinquier,
Thomas Pellegrini
Abstract:
In this work, we propose to study the performance of a model trained with a sentence embedding regression loss component for the Automated Audio Captioning task. This task aims to build systems that can describe audio content with a single sentence written in natural language. Most systems are trained with the standard Cross-Entropy loss, which does not take into account the semantic closeness of…
▽ More
In this work, we propose to study the performance of a model trained with a sentence embedding regression loss component for the Automated Audio Captioning task. This task aims to build systems that can describe audio content with a single sentence written in natural language. Most systems are trained with the standard Cross-Entropy loss, which does not take into account the semantic closeness of the sentence. We found that adding a sentence embedding loss term reduces overfitting, but also increased SPIDEr from 0.397 to 0.418 in our first setting on the AudioCaps corpus. When we increased the weight decay value, we found our model to be much closer to the current state-of-the-art methods, with a SPIDEr score up to 0.444 compared to a 0.475 score. Moreover, this model uses eight times less trainable parameters. In this training setting, the sentence embedding loss has no more impact on the model performance.
△ Less
Submitted 2 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
Is my automatic audio captioning system so bad? spider-max: a metric to consider several caption candidates
Authors:
Etienne Labbé,
Thomas Pellegrini,
Julien Pinquier
Abstract:
Automatic Audio Captioning (AAC) is the task that aims to describe an audio signal using natural language. AAC systems take as input an audio signal and output a free-form text sentence, called a caption. Evaluating such systems is not trivial, since there are many ways to express the same idea. For this reason, several complementary metrics, such as BLEU, CIDEr, SPICE and SPIDEr, are used to comp…
▽ More
Automatic Audio Captioning (AAC) is the task that aims to describe an audio signal using natural language. AAC systems take as input an audio signal and output a free-form text sentence, called a caption. Evaluating such systems is not trivial, since there are many ways to express the same idea. For this reason, several complementary metrics, such as BLEU, CIDEr, SPICE and SPIDEr, are used to compare a single automatic caption to one or several captions of reference, produced by a human annotator. Nevertheless, an automatic system can produce several caption candidates, either using some randomness in the sentence generation process, or by considering the various competing hypothesized captions during decoding with beam-search, for instance. If we consider an end-user of an AAC system, presenting several captions instead of a single one seems relevant to provide some diversity, similarly to information retrieval systems. In this work, we explore the possibility to consider several predicted captions in the evaluation process instead of one. For this purpose, we propose SPIDEr-max, a metric that takes the maximum SPIDEr value among the scores of several caption candidates. To advocate for our metric, we report experiments on Clotho v2.1 and AudioCaps, with a transformed-based system. On AudioCaps for example, this system reached a SPIDEr-max value (with 5 candidates) close to the SPIDEr human score of reference.
△ Less
Submitted 14 November, 2022;
originally announced November 2022.
-
Comparison of semi-supervised deep learning algorithms for audio classification
Authors:
Léo Cances,
Etienne Labbé,
Thomas Pellegrini
Abstract:
In this article, we adapted five recent SSL methods to the task of audio classification. The first two methods, namely Deep Co-Training (DCT) and Mean Teacher (MT), involve two collaborative neural networks. The three other algorithms, called MixMatch (MM), ReMixMatch (RMM), and FixMatch (FM), are single-model methods that rely primarily on data augmentation strategies. Using the Wide-ResNet-28-2…
▽ More
In this article, we adapted five recent SSL methods to the task of audio classification. The first two methods, namely Deep Co-Training (DCT) and Mean Teacher (MT), involve two collaborative neural networks. The three other algorithms, called MixMatch (MM), ReMixMatch (RMM), and FixMatch (FM), are single-model methods that rely primarily on data augmentation strategies. Using the Wide-ResNet-28-2 architecture in all our experiments, 10% of labeled data and the remaining 90% as unlabeled data for training, we first compare the error rates of the five methods on three standard benchmark audio datasets: Environmental Sound Classification (ESC-10), UrbanSound8K (UBS8K), and Google Speech Commands (GSC). In all but one cases, MM, RMM, and FM outperformed MT and DCT significantly, MM and RMM being the best methods in most experiments. On UBS8K and GSC, MM achieved 18.02% and 3.25% error rate (ER), respectively, outperforming models trained with 100% of the available labeled data, which reached 23.29% and 4.94%, respectively. RMM achieved the best results on ESC-10 (12.00% ER), followed by FM which reached 13.33%. Second, we explored adding the mixup augmentation, used in MM and RMM, to DCT, MT, and FM. In almost all cases, mixup brought consistent gains. For instance, on GSC, FM reached 4.44% and 3.31% ER without and with mixup. Our PyTorch code will be made available upon paper acceptance at https:// github. com/ Labbe ti/ SSLH.
△ Less
Submitted 8 March, 2023; v1 submitted 16 February, 2021;
originally announced February 2021.
