Shanshan Wang

h-index8
2papers
482citations

2 Papers

5.1ASJun 22, 2021
Deep neural network Based Low-latency Speech Separation with Asymmetric analysis-Synthesis Window Pair

Shanshan Wang, Gaurav Naithani, Archontis Politis et al.

Time-frequency masking or spectrum prediction computed via short symmetric windows are commonly used in low-latency deep neural network (DNN) based source separation. In this paper, we propose the usage of an asymmetric analysis-synthesis window pair which allows for training with targets with better frequency resolution, while retaining the low-latency during inference suitable for real-time speech enhancement or assisted hearing applications. In order to assess our approach across various model types and datasets, we evaluate it with both speaker-independent deep clustering (DC) model and a speaker-dependent mask inference (MI) model. We report an improvement in separation performance of up to 1.5 dB in terms of source-to-distortion ratio (SDR) while maintaining an algorithmic latency of 8 ms.

5.9ASMay 28, 2021
Audio-visual scene classification: analysis of DCASE 2021 Challenge submissions

Shanshan Wang, Toni Heittola, Annamaria Mesaros et al.

This paper presents the details of the Audio-Visual Scene Classification task in the DCASE 2021 Challenge (Task 1 Subtask B). The task is concerned with classification using audio and video modalities, using a dataset of synchronized recordings. This task has attracted 43 submissions from 13 different teams around the world. Among all submissions, more than half of the submitted systems have better performance than the baseline. The common techniques among the top systems are the usage of large pretrained models such as ResNet or EfficientNet which are trained for the task-specific problem. Fine-tuning, transfer learning, and data augmentation techniques are also employed to boost the performance. More importantly, multi-modal methods using both audio and video are employed by all the top 5 teams. The best system among all achieved a logloss of 0.195 and accuracy of 93.8%, compared to the baseline system with logloss of 0.662 and accuracy of 77.1%.