Etienne Labbé

Etienne Labbé, Thomas Pellegrini, Julien Pinquier

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.

Etienne Labbé, Thomas Pellegrini, Julien Pinquier

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.

Ludovic Tuncay, Etienne Labbé, Thomas Pellegrini

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.

Ludovic Tuncay, Etienne Labbé, Emmanouil Benetos et al.

Building on the Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecture (JEPA) paradigm, a recent self-supervised learning framework that predicts latent representations of masked regions in high-level feature spaces, we propose Audio-JEPA (Audio Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecture), tailored specifically for audio data. Audio-JEPA uses a simple Vision Transformer backbone to predict latent representations of masked spectrogram patches rather than reconstructing raw audio. We pre-train on unlabeled AudioSet clips (10s, 32kHz) with random patch masking on mel-spectrograms. We evaluate on the X-ARES suite covering speech, music, and environmental sound tasks. Although our implementation is a straightforward translation of the original model to audio, the results still show comparable performance to wav2vec 2.0 and data2vec while using less than one-fifth of their training data and with no hyper-parameter tuning. All code and pretrained checkpoints will be released on GitHub.

Léo Cances, Etienne Labbé, Thomas Pellegrini

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.