Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 39 – uploaded by Md Mohaimenuzzaman

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
TABLE 6.6: Results after post-processing of the predictions from Micro-ACDNet The DeepFeatAL models and the retrained models perform similarly to the naked eye with only a small performance difference between them. However, after examining Fig ures 6.2 and 6.1, as well as Table 6.7, it is clear that the model found in the DeepFeat A! process produces better results. Micro-ACDNet trained and fine-tuned on 35h of record ings now outperforms Micro-ACDNet trained on 80h of recordings in terms of accuracy Furthermore, Micro-ACDNet achieved through DeepFeatAL now produces nearly th same number of TPs as its parent model (i.e., ACDNet) with roughly twice the numbe of FPs. Although the FPs are higher, they are manageable because only 36 five-secon audio segments (i.e., 3m) are handed over to the human expert for verification out of 12 of recordings. Table 6.6 displays the detailed record-by-record result of the DeepFeatA. models. of recordings. Table 6.6 displays the detailed record-by-record result of the DeepFeat AL

Table 6 6: Results after post-processing of the predictions from Micro-ACDNet The DeepFeatAL models and the retrained models perform similarly to the naked eye with only a small performance difference between them. However, after examining Fig ures 6.2 and 6.1, as well as Table 6.7, it is clear that the model found in the DeepFeat A! process produces better results. Micro-ACDNet trained and fine-tuned on 35h of record ings now outperforms Micro-ACDNet trained on 80h of recordings in terms of accuracy Furthermore, Micro-ACDNet achieved through DeepFeatAL now produces nearly th same number of TPs as its parent model (i.e., ACDNet) with roughly twice the numbe of FPs. Although the FPs are higher, they are manageable because only 36 five-secon audio segments (i.e., 3m) are handed over to the human expert for verification out of 12 of recordings. Table 6.6 displays the detailed record-by-record result of the DeepFeatA. models. of recordings. Table 6.6 displays the detailed record-by-record result of the DeepFeat AL

Related Figures (85)

While the reasons to move the recognition directly onto small edge devices are partic ularly compelling in the case of ecological monitoring, similar considerations apply t many other applications of intelligent sound recognition, from industrial safety to con sumer devices, for a variety of reasons, including cost and convenience. Specifically, cos is a factor that commonly limits the available compute power and network bandwidth i1 edge applications.
While the reasons to move the recognition directly onto small edge devices are partic ularly compelling in the case of ecological monitoring, similar considerations apply t many other applications of intelligent sound recognition, from industrial safety to con sumer devices, for a variety of reasons, including cost and convenience. Specifically, cos is a factor that commonly limits the available compute power and network bandwidth i1 edge applications.
FIGURE 1.2: Breakdown of the research problem and the scope of this research project Since, the MCUs of this research project do not have the luxury of sending the sensec data to the central server when needed, if a device fails to classify the sensed dat: (e.g., data from a new species on which they have not been trained), it must wait fo the intermittent internet connection to send the data to the cloud server for furthe processing. Once the unlabeled data from the devices is received by the cloud server human experts manually label the data. The Machine Learning (ML) model used fo recognition in the embedded device is then retrained in the cloud server and sent to thi device, replacing the old model with the retrained one. The problem is depicted in « structured manner in Figure 1.2, as are various paths toward potential solutions and thi scope of this research project.
FIGURE 1.2: Breakdown of the research problem and the scope of this research project Since, the MCUs of this research project do not have the luxury of sending the sensec data to the central server when needed, if a device fails to classify the sensed dat: (e.g., data from a new species on which they have not been trained), it must wait fo the intermittent internet connection to send the data to the cloud server for furthe processing. Once the unlabeled data from the devices is received by the cloud server human experts manually label the data. The Machine Learning (ML) model used fo recognition in the embedded device is then retrained in the cloud server and sent to thi device, replacing the old model with the retrained one. The problem is depicted in « structured manner in Figure 1.2, as are various paths toward potential solutions and thi scope of this research project.
FIGURE 1.3: 1-D representation of audio as wave
FIGURE 1.3: 1-D representation of audio as wave
1.2.2 Feature Extraction
1.2.2 Feature Extraction
FIGURE 1.5: Time Series Classification (TSC) Approaches
FIGURE 1.5: Time Series Classification (TSC) Approaches
Due to its significant achievements in the fields of computer vision, speech recognition and natural language processing, DL, also known as DNN, is one of the most activ study areas of ML. D N models have been particularly successful because they cai learn hierarchical features on their own, are resilient to the curse of dimensionality, an can be trained in para lel using graphical processing units [44]. In the case of TSC DNN models not only produce results close to COTE and HIVE-COTE [44], but als significantly surpass N -DTW (see ection 2.1.1.1). In Figure 2.1, we see a general DN} architecture, where xz; represents uniformly spaced input timestamps. architecture, where x; represents uniformly spaced input timestamps. 2.1.2 Deep Learning (DL)-based Approaches
Due to its significant achievements in the fields of computer vision, speech recognition and natural language processing, DL, also known as DNN, is one of the most activ study areas of ML. D N models have been particularly successful because they cai learn hierarchical features on their own, are resilient to the curse of dimensionality, an can be trained in para lel using graphical processing units [44]. In the case of TSC DNN models not only produce results close to COTE and HIVE-COTE [44], but als significantly surpass N -DTW (see ection 2.1.1.1). In Figure 2.1, we see a general DN} architecture, where xz; represents uniformly spaced input timestamps. architecture, where x; represents uniformly spaced input timestamps. 2.1.2 Deep Learning (DL)-based Approaches
to distribute the training, resulting in a very slow process [83]. Another popular DNN architecture is RNN (see Figure 2.2) which is mainly used for TS forecasting. It is very rarely used for TSC due to the fact that it is designed to predict output for each timestamp of a TS [82] and the basic version of RNN suffers from the vanishing gradient! problem while training long TS. Furthermore, it is difficult to distribute the training, resulting in a very slow process [83]. To avoid vanishing gradient, different variations of RNN such as long short term memory (LSTM), gated recurrent (GRU) and RNN is comprised of randomly initia Echo State Network (1 ESN) [84] are introduced. A ized hidden layers [44 | where the output weights are learned using algorithms like logistic regression. The hidden state can be calculatec using equation 2.5 where I(t) is the internal hidden state, Wj, is the weight matrices fo. input TS, and X(t) is the vector for input TS. The output is calculated according t« equation 2.6. 2.1.2.2. Recurrent Neural Network (RNN)
to distribute the training, resulting in a very slow process [83]. Another popular DNN architecture is RNN (see Figure 2.2) which is mainly used for TS forecasting. It is very rarely used for TSC due to the fact that it is designed to predict output for each timestamp of a TS [82] and the basic version of RNN suffers from the vanishing gradient! problem while training long TS. Furthermore, it is difficult to distribute the training, resulting in a very slow process [83]. To avoid vanishing gradient, different variations of RNN such as long short term memory (LSTM), gated recurrent (GRU) and RNN is comprised of randomly initia Echo State Network (1 ESN) [84] are introduced. A ized hidden layers [44 | where the output weights are learned using algorithms like logistic regression. The hidden state can be calculatec using equation 2.5 where I(t) is the internal hidden state, Wj, is the weight matrices fo. input TS, and X(t) is the vector for input TS. The output is calculated according t« equation 2.6. 2.1.2.2. Recurrent Neural Network (RNN)
where x; denotes evenly spaced input time stamp. The TSC researchers have been inspired to adopt CNN for TSC from its resounding success in computer vision, speech recognition, and natural language processing. A CNN consists of an input layer, convolution layers, pooling layers, fully connected layers and an output layer at the end [80]. Figure 2.3 represents a typical CNN architecture where x; denotes evenly spaced input time stamp. A Convolution is the point-wise multiplication of data with the filters (i.e., a matrix that moves over the data, also known as kernels or feature detectors) associated with a specific layer to generate feature maps (also known as activation). See Section 9.1 of Deep Learning [80] for a more in-depth understanding of convolution. The advantage of using multiple filters is twofold: it allows you to learn multiple discriminative features across the TS and it requires far fewer model parameters than FCNN. Equation 2.7 represents the general form of convolution on an evenly spaced input time stamp X; of a TS of length T with filter w of length | [44].
where x; denotes evenly spaced input time stamp. The TSC researchers have been inspired to adopt CNN for TSC from its resounding success in computer vision, speech recognition, and natural language processing. A CNN consists of an input layer, convolution layers, pooling layers, fully connected layers and an output layer at the end [80]. Figure 2.3 represents a typical CNN architecture where x; denotes evenly spaced input time stamp. A Convolution is the point-wise multiplication of data with the filters (i.e., a matrix that moves over the data, also known as kernels or feature detectors) associated with a specific layer to generate feature maps (also known as activation). See Section 9.1 of Deep Learning [80] for a more in-depth understanding of convolution. The advantage of using multiple filters is twofold: it allows you to learn multiple discriminative features across the TS and it requires far fewer model parameters than FCNN. Equation 2.7 represents the general form of convolution on an evenly spaced input time stamp X; of a TS of length T with filter w of length | [44].
FIGURE 2.4: Transformer Neural Network (Slightly modified from [86]) (0 make the most of the GPU. Figure 2.4 shows the overall structure of TNN.
FIGURE 2.4: Transformer Neural Network (Slightly modified from [86]) (0 make the most of the GPU. Figure 2.4 shows the overall structure of TNN.
FIGURE 2.5: Weight sharing by training quantization (taken from [91])
FIGURE 2.5: Weight sharing by training quantization (taken from [91])
FIGURE 2.7: Example dense matrix and sparse matrix are referred to as sparse matrices (Figure 2.7 right matrix). In an Unstructured pruning (i.e., weight pruning) process the unimportant weight values are removed from the weight matrices of different layers in the DNN model by setting them to zeros [91, 100, 101]. Only a few important weights that influence the model’s decision making are left in the weight matrices. These matrices with many zeros are referred to as sparse matrices (Figure 2.7 richt matrix). There is a large amount of research work on unstructured pruning. The theoretical compression of the base DNN model provided by this pruning technique is astounding. However, it generates sparse matrix models, which require special representation and hardware to perform the sparse computation. A sparse matrix can be represented in two ways: triplet /array representation and linked representation. Figure 2.8 depicts a triplet /array representation. According to the figure, each non-zero value usually requires 3x memory for implementation.
FIGURE 2.7: Example dense matrix and sparse matrix are referred to as sparse matrices (Figure 2.7 right matrix). In an Unstructured pruning (i.e., weight pruning) process the unimportant weight values are removed from the weight matrices of different layers in the DNN model by setting them to zeros [91, 100, 101]. Only a few important weights that influence the model’s decision making are left in the weight matrices. These matrices with many zeros are referred to as sparse matrices (Figure 2.7 richt matrix). There is a large amount of research work on unstructured pruning. The theoretical compression of the base DNN model provided by this pruning technique is astounding. However, it generates sparse matrix models, which require special representation and hardware to perform the sparse computation. A sparse matrix can be represented in two ways: triplet /array representation and linked representation. Figure 2.8 depicts a triplet /array representation. According to the figure, each non-zero value usually requires 3x memory for implementation.
FIGURE 2.8: Triplet /Array Representation of sparse matrix (taken from [102]) Sparse matrix models are not ideal for direct implementation on embedded devices. According to the literature, all such compressed models were deployed on mobile devices or in devices with at least equivalent resources. Oktay et al. [100], for example, deployed their model in the Samsung Galaxy $7 (32GB flash drive and 4GB RAM). Edge-L?, the only work we found on sound classification at the edge by Kumari et al. [101] at the time of this study, requires 12MB of run-time memory, which prevents it from being deployed in the device that this research project is aimed at. Furthermore, the MCUs lack the dedicated hardware and software support for sparse matrix computations required to capitalize on these theoretical savings [99, 103].
FIGURE 2.8: Triplet /Array Representation of sparse matrix (taken from [102]) Sparse matrix models are not ideal for direct implementation on embedded devices. According to the literature, all such compressed models were deployed on mobile devices or in devices with at least equivalent resources. Oktay et al. [100], for example, deployed their model in the Samsung Galaxy $7 (32GB flash drive and 4GB RAM). Edge-L?, the only work we found on sound classification at the edge by Kumari et al. [101] at the time of this study, requires 12MB of run-time memory, which prevents it from being deployed in the device that this research project is aimed at. Furthermore, the MCUs lack the dedicated hardware and software support for sparse matrix computations required to capitalize on these theoretical savings [99, 103].
FIGURE 2.9: Typical convolution layer vs binary convolution layer XNOR-Net represents the weights in 1-bit and performs convolutions using bit-wise XNOR operations, thus saving significant amount of memory and computation. In an XNOR-Net [109], all layers except the first and the last are binary layers. The input, activations, and the weights of the binary layers are represented using either +1 or -1 and are stored efficiently with single bits. Figure 2.9 shows the construction of a typical convolution laver and an equivalent binary convolution layer. 2.2.3 XNOR-Net
FIGURE 2.9: Typical convolution layer vs binary convolution layer XNOR-Net represents the weights in 1-bit and performs convolutions using bit-wise XNOR operations, thus saving significant amount of memory and computation. In an XNOR-Net [109], all layers except the first and the last are binary layers. The input, activations, and the weights of the binary layers are represented using either +1 or -1 and are stored efficiently with single bits. Figure 2.9 shows the construction of a typical convolution laver and an equivalent binary convolution layer. 2.2.3 XNOR-Net
FIGURE 2.10: XNOR and POPCOUNT in XNOR-Net Like structured pruning-based compression works, almost all the works based on XNOR- Net are proposed for computer vision. A few recent SOTA XNOR-Net models for the benchmark image datasets are: [109] for MNIST, [110] for CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 and [111] for ImageNet.
FIGURE 2.10: XNOR and POPCOUNT in XNOR-Net Like structured pruning-based compression works, almost all the works based on XNOR- Net are proposed for computer vision. A few recent SOTA XNOR-Net models for the benchmark image datasets are: [109] for MNIST, [110] for CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 and [111] for ImageNet.
FIGURE 2.11: The detailed architecture of commonly used active learning system
FIGURE 2.11: The detailed architecture of commonly used active learning system
Chapter 3: Baseline DNN Architecture and its MCU-Compatible Version TABLE 3.1: SOTA models for ESC-10, ESC-50, US8K and AE datasets. Note: The grayed-out rows represent the DNN models that were published after the work in this chapter was completed (i.e., after 2019). Abbreviations: ATTN (Attention), CO (Cochleagram), CRP (Cross Recurrence Plot), CT (Chromagram), DGT (The Discrete Gabor Transform), ENS (Ensemble Model), FBE (FilterBank En- ergies), GT (GammaTone), LP (Log-Power Spectrogram), Mel (Mel Spectrogram), MFCC (Mel-Frequency Cepstral Coefficients), PE (Phase-Encoded), Raw (Raw audio wave), Spec (Spectrogram), TEO (Teager’s Energy Operator)
Chapter 3: Baseline DNN Architecture and its MCU-Compatible Version TABLE 3.1: SOTA models for ESC-10, ESC-50, US8K and AE datasets. Note: The grayed-out rows represent the DNN models that were published after the work in this chapter was completed (i.e., after 2019). Abbreviations: ATTN (Attention), CO (Cochleagram), CRP (Cross Recurrence Plot), CT (Chromagram), DGT (The Discrete Gabor Transform), ENS (Ensemble Model), FBE (FilterBank En- ergies), GT (GammaTone), LP (Log-Power Spectrogram), Mel (Mel Spectrogram), MFCC (Mel-Frequency Cepstral Coefficients), PE (Phase-Encoded), Raw (Raw audio wave), Spec (Spectrogram), TEO (Teager’s Energy Operator)
FIGURE 3.1: Visual representation of ACDNet model architecture. Unlike other suggested SOTA models, which use pre-extracted features and multi-channel input (such as hand-crafted features and spectrograms), the ACDNet architecture con- centrates solely on feature extraction through convolution layers. All the convolution layers are followed by a batch normalization and a ReLU activation layers. The maxpool layers have strides equal to their pool size to avoid overlapping. The network is fed with raw audio time series (i.e., single-channel input). ACDNet consists of two feature extraction blocks followed by an output block. The feature extraction blocks are Spec- tral Feature | Extraction Block (SF! EB) and Temporal Feature | Extraction Block (TFEB). Figure 3.1 depicts the layer structure of different blocks of the ACDNet architecture.
FIGURE 3.1: Visual representation of ACDNet model architecture. Unlike other suggested SOTA models, which use pre-extracted features and multi-channel input (such as hand-crafted features and spectrograms), the ACDNet architecture con- centrates solely on feature extraction through convolution layers. All the convolution layers are followed by a batch normalization and a ReLU activation layers. The maxpool layers have strides equal to their pool size to avoid overlapping. The network is fed with raw audio time series (i.e., single-channel input). ACDNet consists of two feature extraction blocks followed by an output block. The feature extraction blocks are Spec- tral Feature | Extraction Block (SF! EB) and Temporal Feature | Extraction Block (TFEB). Figure 3.1 depicts the layer structure of different blocks of the ACDNet architecture.
TABLE 3.2: ACDNet architecture. Output shape represents (channel, frequency, time), i_len is the input length, n_cls is the number of output classes, sr is the sampling rate in Hz models suitable for MCUs with comparable accuracy.
TABLE 3.2: ACDNet architecture. Output shape represents (channel, frequency, time), i_len is the input length, n_cls is the number of output classes, sr is the sampling rate in Hz models suitable for MCUs with comparable accuracy.
TABLE 3.3: CV Accuracy and estimated 95% CI of classification accuracy of ACDNet on ESC-10, ESC-50, US8K and AE datasets.
TABLE 3.3: CV Accuracy and estimated 95% CI of classification accuracy of ACDNet on ESC-10, ESC-50, US8K and AE datasets.
TABLE 3.4: ACDNet in the SOTA leaderboard for raw audio classification on ESC-10&50, US8K and AE datasets. Accuracy values with asterisk (*) are repro- duced by us.
TABLE 3.4: ACDNet in the SOTA leaderboard for raw audio classification on ESC-10&50, US8K and AE datasets. Accuracy values with asterisk (*) are repro- duced by us.
TABLE 3.6: Parameters, size, and computation requirements for current SOTA models on the ESC-50 dataset. Here, x denotes the size and FLOPs of ACDNet, for the Size and FLOPs column, respectively. Note: The grayed-out rows represent the DNN models that were published after the work in this chapter was completed (i.e., after 2019).
TABLE 3.6: Parameters, size, and computation requirements for current SOTA models on the ESC-50 dataset. Here, x denotes the size and FLOPs of ACDNet, for the Size and FLOPs column, respectively. Note: The grayed-out rows represent the DNN models that were published after the work in this chapter was completed (i.e., after 2019).
present this method in the following form. 3.4.4 Experimental Results We use the same experimental setup that has been discussed in Section 3.3.2 for this experimental study. ESC-50 (fold-4) is used to fine-tune the network during the com- pression process. The performance of the resulting network is cross-validated on all the four datasets and the results are reported. four datasets and the results are reported.
present this method in the following form. 3.4.4 Experimental Results We use the same experimental setup that has been discussed in Section 3.3.2 for this experimental study. ESC-50 (fold-4) is used to fine-tune the network during the com- pression process. The performance of the resulting network is cross-validated on all the four datasets and the results are reported. four datasets and the results are reported.
TABLE 3.7: Sparsifying the Weights in ACDNet. The sparsified model is further pruned through channel pruning. We prune 80% and 85% channels using all the discussed methods and present the results in Tables 3.8 and 3.9 Models 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 and 7-8 in both the tables are the resulting models of magnitude. based pruning, taylor pruning, and the two combinations of our proposed hybrid pruning respectively. All models are iteratively pruned and fine-tuned. The column Fine-tunin, Accuracy shows the accuracy obtained at the end of the iterative pruning and fine-tuning
TABLE 3.7: Sparsifying the Weights in ACDNet. The sparsified model is further pruned through channel pruning. We prune 80% and 85% channels using all the discussed methods and present the results in Tables 3.8 and 3.9 Models 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 and 7-8 in both the tables are the resulting models of magnitude. based pruning, taylor pruning, and the two combinations of our proposed hybrid pruning respectively. All models are iteratively pruned and fine-tuned. The column Fine-tunin, Accuracy shows the accuracy obtained at the end of the iterative pruning and fine-tuning
From the tables (Table 3.8 and Table 3.9), we observe that pruning and fine-tuning doe: not recover the loss in accuracy as hoped for. To achieve the best accuracy, we therefor« conduct further full re-training of the networks with their existing weights, scratch: training by re-initializing their weights. We use the base network’s training settings fo. re-training and scratch training. The accuracy of these different training processes art reported in Re-training Accuracy and Scratch-training Accuracy columns respectively. Ir addition to re-training and scratch-training, we also train the re-initialized fresh networks using knowledge distillation [97], and the result is presented in Table 3.10. TABLE 3.8: Models found after 80% channel pruning using magnitude-based ranking, Taylor criteria-based ranking and our hybrid pruning approach. using knowledge distillation |97|, and the result is presented in Table 3.10.
From the tables (Table 3.8 and Table 3.9), we observe that pruning and fine-tuning doe: not recover the loss in accuracy as hoped for. To achieve the best accuracy, we therefor« conduct further full re-training of the networks with their existing weights, scratch: training by re-initializing their weights. We use the base network’s training settings fo. re-training and scratch training. The accuracy of these different training processes art reported in Re-training Accuracy and Scratch-training Accuracy columns respectively. Ir addition to re-training and scratch-training, we also train the re-initialized fresh networks using knowledge distillation [97], and the result is presented in Table 3.10. TABLE 3.8: Models found after 80% channel pruning using magnitude-based ranking, Taylor criteria-based ranking and our hybrid pruning approach. using knowledge distillation |97|, and the result is presented in Table 3.10.
FIGURE 3.2: (a) Comparison of 80% pruned models from Table 3.8. (b) Comparison of 85% pruned models from Table 3.9. For visualization, the variables are linearly transformed to range [50 - max(variable)].
FIGURE 3.2: (a) Comparison of 80% pruned models from Table 3.8. (b) Comparison of 85% pruned models from Table 3.9. For visualization, the variables are linearly transformed to range [50 - max(variable)].
TABLE 3.11: Micro-ACDNet architecture for input length 30225 (approximately 1.51s audio @ 20kHz) Table 3.11 presents the architecture of Micro-ACDNet.
TABLE 3.11: Micro-ACDNet architecture for input length 30225 (approximately 1.51s audio @ 20kHz) Table 3.11 presents the architecture of Micro-ACDNet.
ter and Micro-ACDNet achieves the highest prediction accuracy, we conduct scratch- aining for all the networks, 5-fold (1 ESC-10&50) and 10-fold (US8K) CV over five in- pendent runs. Table 3.13 presents their classification accuracy on different datasets. he resu ts in the table clearly indicate that the compressed models generalize well on | the four datasets. Their classification accuracy is very close to their base model’s assifica tion accuracy. TABLE 3.13: ACDNet, AclNet , Micro-ACDNet and Micro-AclNet performance on different datasets 3.4.4.6 Comparing Micro-ACDNet with Other Networks
ter and Micro-ACDNet achieves the highest prediction accuracy, we conduct scratch- aining for all the networks, 5-fold (1 ESC-10&50) and 10-fold (US8K) CV over five in- pendent runs. Table 3.13 presents their classification accuracy on different datasets. he resu ts in the table clearly indicate that the compressed models generalize well on | the four datasets. Their classification accuracy is very close to their base model’s assifica tion accuracy. TABLE 3.13: ACDNet, AclNet , Micro-ACDNet and Micro-AclNet performance on different datasets 3.4.4.6 Comparing Micro-ACDNet with Other Networks
TABLE 4.2: Size and computation requirements for ACDNet, AclNet including their Micro and QMicro versions Chapter 4: Study on Deep Architecture Compression Techniques
TABLE 4.2: Size and computation requirements for ACDNet, AclNet including their Micro and QMicro versions Chapter 4: Study on Deep Architecture Compression Techniques
increase in the number of classes, as may be expected. TABLE 4.3: Prediction accuracy (%) of Micro versions of ACDNet and AclNet including their quantized versions (QMicro) on ESC-10,...,50 datasets. The column headers ’4Cls’ stands for ’No. of Classes’ and ’Baseline’ stands for the base model (i.e., ACDNet or AclNet). Although the smaller models require fewer resources, they lose classification accuracy because they have less capacity to learn. According to [42], Micro-ACDNet has 80% less capacity than ACDNet and QMicro-ACDNet is a quarter precision version (8-bit) of Micro-ACDNet. Table 4.3 and Figure 4.1 present a comparison of the accuracy achieved by the three versions of both the baseline networks on ESC-10,...,50 datasets (derived using Equation 4.2. For further details, see Section 4.3.1). The table and the figure show that all the three versions of both the networks produce state-of-the-art and nea state-of-the-art accuracy on ESC-10, however, the accuracy drops continuously with an increase in the number of classes. as mav be expected.
increase in the number of classes, as may be expected. TABLE 4.3: Prediction accuracy (%) of Micro versions of ACDNet and AclNet including their quantized versions (QMicro) on ESC-10,...,50 datasets. The column headers ’4Cls’ stands for ’No. of Classes’ and ’Baseline’ stands for the base model (i.e., ACDNet or AclNet). Although the smaller models require fewer resources, they lose classification accuracy because they have less capacity to learn. According to [42], Micro-ACDNet has 80% less capacity than ACDNet and QMicro-ACDNet is a quarter precision version (8-bit) of Micro-ACDNet. Table 4.3 and Figure 4.1 present a comparison of the accuracy achieved by the three versions of both the baseline networks on ESC-10,...,50 datasets (derived using Equation 4.2. For further details, see Section 4.3.1). The table and the figure show that all the three versions of both the networks produce state-of-the-art and nea state-of-the-art accuracy on ESC-10, however, the accuracy drops continuously with an increase in the number of classes. as mav be expected.
TABLE 4.4: Prediction accuracy (%) of Micro versions of ACDNet and AclNet including their quantized versions (QMicro) on UrbanSound8k dataset. Here, ‘Baseline’ stands for the base model (i.e., ACDNet or AclNet) The scenario is not different when we apply the same networks on the UrbanSound8l dataset. Table 4.4 shows that QMicro-ACDNet has lost almost 13.5% accuracy comparec to the base network. For QMicro-AclNet, the loss in accuracy is 11.7% compared to the base network. We note that specialized quantization targeted to a particular mode can potentially reduce the loss of the accuracy that the models experience during th: quantization process. However, improving any technique used to demonstrate the proces: is beyond the scope of the study of this chapter and while a change in quantizatio1 techniques may shift the results, the general trends are expected to remain the same. The scenario is not different when we apply the same networks on the UrbanSound8k
TABLE 4.4: Prediction accuracy (%) of Micro versions of ACDNet and AclNet including their quantized versions (QMicro) on UrbanSound8k dataset. Here, ‘Baseline’ stands for the base model (i.e., ACDNet or AclNet) The scenario is not different when we apply the same networks on the UrbanSound8l dataset. Table 4.4 shows that QMicro-ACDNet has lost almost 13.5% accuracy comparec to the base network. For QMicro-AclNet, the loss in accuracy is 11.7% compared to the base network. We note that specialized quantization targeted to a particular mode can potentially reduce the loss of the accuracy that the models experience during th: quantization process. However, improving any technique used to demonstrate the proces: is beyond the scope of the study of this chapter and while a change in quantizatio1 techniques may shift the results, the general trends are expected to remain the same. The scenario is not different when we apply the same networks on the UrbanSound8k
FIGURE 4.1: Comparison of prediction accuracy between the baseline models (i.e., ACDNet and AclNet) and the micro versions including their quantized versions (QMi- cro) on FSC-10.... .50 datasets.
FIGURE 4.1: Comparison of prediction accuracy between the baseline models (i.e., ACDNet and AclNet) and the micro versions including their quantized versions (QMi- cro) on FSC-10.... .50 datasets.
spaces alone already leave hardly any room for the actual computations. Hence, we neec smaller versions of the original networks whose resource requirements do not exceed the resources available in the MCUs. To compare the network performance, memory, anc computation requirements with QMicro-ACDNet, we create Mini-ACDNet such that its XNOR-Net version has similar requirements to QMicro-ACDNet (see Tables 4.2 anc 4.5). To derive Mini-ACDNet, we use the same technique as that used to derive Micro ACDNet, summarized above and fully detailed in [42]. The same procedure is used t« derive Mini-AclNet from AclNet. TABLE 4.5: Size and computation requirements for the baseline(i.e., ACDNet or AclNet), Mini and their XNOR-Net versions XBaseline and XMini respectively.
spaces alone already leave hardly any room for the actual computations. Hence, we neec smaller versions of the original networks whose resource requirements do not exceed the resources available in the MCUs. To compare the network performance, memory, anc computation requirements with QMicro-ACDNet, we create Mini-ACDNet such that its XNOR-Net version has similar requirements to QMicro-ACDNet (see Tables 4.2 anc 4.5). To derive Mini-ACDNet, we use the same technique as that used to derive Micro ACDNet, summarized above and fully detailed in [42]. The same procedure is used t« derive Mini-AclNet from AclNet. TABLE 4.5: Size and computation requirements for the baseline(i.e., ACDNet or AclNet), Mini and their XNOR-Net versions XBaseline and XMini respectively.
TABLE 4.6: Prediction accuracy (%) of Baselines and Mini versions including their XNOR-Net versions on ESC-10,...,50 datasets. The column header ’#Cls’ stands for ’No. of Classes’ and ’Baseline’ stands for the base network (i.e., ACDNet or AclNet) Table 4.5 also shows that XMini versions are extremely small (128.5KB and 133.12KB) and require considerably less compu on the current off-the-shelf MCUs. XNOR networks produce reasonab Furthermore, from Table 4.6, we can see t e accuracy for a smaller number of classes ( tation. This clearly allows the network to be deployed hat the ESC-10 with 10 classes). However, as the number of classes increases, the network performance of the XNOR versions decreases ra pidly.
TABLE 4.6: Prediction accuracy (%) of Baselines and Mini versions including their XNOR-Net versions on ESC-10,...,50 datasets. The column header ’#Cls’ stands for ’No. of Classes’ and ’Baseline’ stands for the base network (i.e., ACDNet or AclNet) Table 4.5 also shows that XMini versions are extremely small (128.5KB and 133.12KB) and require considerably less compu on the current off-the-shelf MCUs. XNOR networks produce reasonab Furthermore, from Table 4.6, we can see t e accuracy for a smaller number of classes ( tation. This clearly allows the network to be deployed hat the ESC-10 with 10 classes). However, as the number of classes increases, the network performance of the XNOR versions decreases ra pidly.
FIGURE 4.2: Comparison of prediction accuracy between Baseline, Mini including their XNOR-Net versions and Micro including its quantized version (QMicro) on ESC-10,...,50 datasets. The Baseline network is AcdNet or AclNet. XMini and QMi- cro versions have approximately the same memory requirements. slope is much steeper than that for the other compression methods.
FIGURE 4.2: Comparison of prediction accuracy between Baseline, Mini including their XNOR-Net versions and Micro including its quantized version (QMicro) on ESC-10,...,50 datasets. The Baseline network is AcdNet or AclNet. XMini and QMi- cro versions have approximately the same memory requirements. slope is much steeper than that for the other compression methods.
FIGURE 4.3: Comparison of prediction accuracy between Baseline, Mini including their XNOR-Net versions and Micro including its quantized version (QMicro) on the Urban- Sound&k dataset. The Baseline network is ACDNet or AclNet. XMini and QMicro versions have approximately the same memory requirements.
FIGURE 4.3: Comparison of prediction accuracy between Baseline, Mini including their XNOR-Net versions and Micro including its quantized version (QMicro) on the Urban- Sound&k dataset. The Baseline network is ACDNet or AclNet. XMini and QMicro versions have approximately the same memory requirements.
FIGURE 4.4: Comparison of prediction accuracy between the Baseline (ACDNet or AclNet), Mini including their XNOR-Net versions and Micro including its quantized version (QMicro) on AudioEvent datasets and its subsets (10, 20 and 28 classes). XMini and QMicro versions have approximately the same memory requirements. To facilitate a direct comparison, we extend our analysis to this dataset, which has also been used in a several other studies [157, 169]. These results are consistent with what we have seen above for the most widely used standard benchmarks. Table 4.7 and Figure 4.4 show the performance of our base nets on the AudioEvent dataset and its smaller subsets. show the performance of our base nets on the AudioEvent dataset and its smaller subsets.
FIGURE 4.4: Comparison of prediction accuracy between the Baseline (ACDNet or AclNet), Mini including their XNOR-Net versions and Micro including its quantized version (QMicro) on AudioEvent datasets and its subsets (10, 20 and 28 classes). XMini and QMicro versions have approximately the same memory requirements. To facilitate a direct comparison, we extend our analysis to this dataset, which has also been used in a several other studies [157, 169]. These results are consistent with what we have seen above for the most widely used standard benchmarks. Table 4.7 and Figure 4.4 show the performance of our base nets on the AudioEvent dataset and its smaller subsets. show the performance of our base nets on the AudioEvent dataset and its smaller subsets.
TABLE 4.7: Prediction accuracy (%) of the Baseline (ACDNet or AclNet), Mini includ- ing their XNOR-Net versions and Micro including its quantized version (QMicro) on AudioEvent-10,20,28 datasets. The column header ’#£Cls’ stands for "No. of Classes’. XMini and QMicro versions have approximately the same memory requirements. Chapter 4: Study on Deep Architecture Compression Techniques
TABLE 4.7: Prediction accuracy (%) of the Baseline (ACDNet or AclNet), Mini includ- ing their XNOR-Net versions and Micro including its quantized version (QMicro) on AudioEvent-10,20,28 datasets. The column header ’#£Cls’ stands for "No. of Classes’. XMini and QMicro versions have approximately the same memory requirements. Chapter 4: Study on Deep Architecture Compression Techniques
TABLE 4.8: Prediction accuracy (%) of BNN-GAP8, Nano and GAP8 versions of both the baselines including the XNOR-Net for GAP8 (i.e., XGAP8) and the quantized version of Nano (i.e., QNano) on AudioEvent (28 classes) dataset However, the larger resource requirements of our base networks do not allow us a direct and fair comparison to the BNN-GAP8 network presented in |176]. Therefore, we derive two additional smaller networks (QNano-ACDNet and XGAP8-ACDNet) with memory requirements equivalent to BNN-GAP8. QNano-ACDNet is a 8-bit quantized versior of the associated full-precision network Nano-ACDNet that is derived by pruning the channels from ACDNet. XGAP8-ACDNet is an XNOR network derived from the ful precision network GAP8-ACDNet. GAP8-ACDNet is also derived by pruning channel: from ACDNet. The equivalent derivatives are also derived from AclNet. The new mod: els are constructed using the same procedures as described above. The tests of thes« networks on the AudioEvent dataset used in [176] are summarized in Table 4.8. networks on the AudioEvent dataset used in [176] are summarized in Table 4.8.
TABLE 4.8: Prediction accuracy (%) of BNN-GAP8, Nano and GAP8 versions of both the baselines including the XNOR-Net for GAP8 (i.e., XGAP8) and the quantized version of Nano (i.e., QNano) on AudioEvent (28 classes) dataset However, the larger resource requirements of our base networks do not allow us a direct and fair comparison to the BNN-GAP8 network presented in |176]. Therefore, we derive two additional smaller networks (QNano-ACDNet and XGAP8-ACDNet) with memory requirements equivalent to BNN-GAP8. QNano-ACDNet is a 8-bit quantized versior of the associated full-precision network Nano-ACDNet that is derived by pruning the channels from ACDNet. XGAP8-ACDNet is an XNOR network derived from the ful precision network GAP8-ACDNet. GAP8-ACDNet is also derived by pruning channel: from ACDNet. The equivalent derivatives are also derived from AclNet. The new mod: els are constructed using the same procedures as described above. The tests of thes« networks on the AudioEvent dataset used in [176] are summarized in Table 4.8. networks on the AudioEvent dataset used in [176] are summarized in Table 4.8.
FIGURE 4.5: Comparison of prediction accuracy between BNN-GAP8, GAP8-ACDNet and Nano-ACDNet on AudioEvent dataset for 28 classes. BNN-GAP8 runs on spec- trogram, in contrast, GAP8-ACDNet and Nano-ACDNet run on raw audio. GAP8- ACDNet has approximately the same resource requirements of BNN-GAP8. QNano- ACDNet has equivalent memory requirement of the XNOR versions of BNN-GAP8 and XGAP8-ACDNet How can BNN-GAP8 achieve such good performance on a 28-class problem? The likely reason is that BNN-GAP8 benefits from using spectrograms as input to the network. This means that in the BNN-GAP8 implementation much of the necessary full precision computation required, for which a binary net is not suitable, is encapsulated outside of the network in the conversion of raw audio to spectrograms. The other XNOR networks in this comparison are deprived of this possibility because they perform end-to-end clas- sification for raw audio input and thus must perform all required computations within the network.
FIGURE 4.5: Comparison of prediction accuracy between BNN-GAP8, GAP8-ACDNet and Nano-ACDNet on AudioEvent dataset for 28 classes. BNN-GAP8 runs on spec- trogram, in contrast, GAP8-ACDNet and Nano-ACDNet run on raw audio. GAP8- ACDNet has approximately the same resource requirements of BNN-GAP8. QNano- ACDNet has equivalent memory requirement of the XNOR versions of BNN-GAP8 and XGAP8-ACDNet How can BNN-GAP8 achieve such good performance on a 28-class problem? The likely reason is that BNN-GAP8 benefits from using spectrograms as input to the network. This means that in the BNN-GAP8 implementation much of the necessary full precision computation required, for which a binary net is not suitable, is encapsulated outside of the network in the conversion of raw audio to spectrograms. The other XNOR networks in this comparison are deprived of this possibility because they perform end-to-end clas- sification for raw audio input and thus must perform all required computations within the network.
TABLE 4.9: State-of-the-art accuracy (%) for various image datasets. ’#Cls’ stands for “number of Classes’. Most of the work on XNOR nets so far has taken place in the image domain. A compari- son with this body of work is instructive. We summarize the state-of-the-art for the most widely used datasets in Table 4.9. The accuracy achieved by XNOR nets is impressive (second last column), but it has to be noted that these nets are significantly larger than our target size. None of these models fit on the relevant MCUs with the single exception of the one for MNIST. This is a very simple dataset with only 10 classes. of the one for MNIST. This is a very simple dataset with only 10 classes.
TABLE 4.9: State-of-the-art accuracy (%) for various image datasets. ’#Cls’ stands for “number of Classes’. Most of the work on XNOR nets so far has taken place in the image domain. A compari- son with this body of work is instructive. We summarize the state-of-the-art for the most widely used datasets in Table 4.9. The accuracy achieved by XNOR nets is impressive (second last column), but it has to be noted that these nets are significantly larger than our target size. None of these models fit on the relevant MCUs with the single exception of the one for MNIST. This is a very simple dataset with only 10 classes. of the one for MNIST. This is a very simple dataset with only 10 classes.
TABLE 4.10: RESNET-18 and its XNOR-Net version on CIFAR-10,20,....,100 datasets. To verify whether our own results for audio classification are consistent with the image domain, we conducted additional experiments on image classification using XNOR. We ESNET-18 [177| to classify the widely used benchmark have used the XNOR version of R1 image datasets CIFAR-10 and C FAR-100. We have created variably sized CIFAR-100 to determine whether the trend of the loss in accuracy is simil classification. The experimental details are provided in Section 4.3. Tab e 4. subsets of ar to audio 0 and Figure 4.6 summarize the results. The sizes of the full precision models are between 42.63MB and 42.80MB and the computation requirements between 95.17M 95.21M FLOPs. For the XNOR-Net version, the model size is approximately 1 FLO using 2.06M FLOPs. The results of this experiment are consistent with those Ps and .34MB or the audio domain, and it is clearly visible that a similar performance drop for XNOR occurs as the number of classes increases.
TABLE 4.10: RESNET-18 and its XNOR-Net version on CIFAR-10,20,....,100 datasets. To verify whether our own results for audio classification are consistent with the image domain, we conducted additional experiments on image classification using XNOR. We ESNET-18 [177| to classify the widely used benchmark have used the XNOR version of R1 image datasets CIFAR-10 and C FAR-100. We have created variably sized CIFAR-100 to determine whether the trend of the loss in accuracy is simil classification. The experimental details are provided in Section 4.3. Tab e 4. subsets of ar to audio 0 and Figure 4.6 summarize the results. The sizes of the full precision models are between 42.63MB and 42.80MB and the computation requirements between 95.17M 95.21M FLOPs. For the XNOR-Net version, the model size is approximately 1 FLO using 2.06M FLOPs. The results of this experiment are consistent with those Ps and .34MB or the audio domain, and it is clearly visible that a similar performance drop for XNOR occurs as the number of classes increases.
FIGURE 4.6: Prediction accuracy of RESNET-18 and its XNOR-Net version on CIFAR- 10,20,....,100 datasets
FIGURE 4.6: Prediction accuracy of RESNET-18 and its XNOR-Net version on CIFAR- 10,20,....,100 datasets
the detailed construction of the DeepFeatAL. FIGURE 5.1: The detailed architecture of proposed DeepFeat AL The proposed Deep Active Feature Learning (DeepFeatAL) system refines feature extrac- tion and classification from raw audio. It aims to improve feature extraction quality and recognition accuracy while requiring minimal data annotation effort. Figure 5.1 depicts the detailed construction of the DeepFeat AL.
the detailed construction of the DeepFeatAL. FIGURE 5.1: The detailed architecture of proposed DeepFeat AL The proposed Deep Active Feature Learning (DeepFeatAL) system refines feature extrac- tion and classification from raw audio. It aims to improve feature extraction quality and recognition accuracy while requiring minimal data annotation effort. Figure 5.1 depicts the detailed construction of the DeepFeat AL.
TABLE 5.1: ACDNet in different training settings for incremental Learning. The first row indicates the performance of the model before incremental learning.
TABLE 5.1: ACDNet in different training settings for incremental Learning. The first row indicates the performance of the model before incremental learning.
FIGURE 5.2: ACDNet in different training settings for incremental Learning. The first row indicates the performance of the model before incremental learning. esult, for the remainder of this chapter, we will refer to this task as fine-tuning.
FIGURE 5.2: ACDNet in different training settings for incremental Learning. The first row indicates the performance of the model before incremental learning. esult, for the remainder of this chapter, we will refer to this task as fine-tuning.
TABLE 5.2: DeepIcL vs SDAL using ACDNet on ESC-50 dataset
TABLE 5.2: DeepIcL vs SDAL using ACDNet on ESC-50 dataset
FIGURE 5.3: DeepIcL vs SDAL using ACDNet on ESC-50 dataset Figure 5.3, which is generated from Table 5.2, shows that AL-RidgeC achieves the high- est prediction accuracy achieved by DeepIcL (i.e., 65.43%) in only 4 iterations on the ESC-50 dataset, saving ~43% of the labeling budget. At the end of seven human la- beling iterations, AL-RidgeC achieved the highest accuracy of 67.94%. The difference in prediction accuracy ensures that AL aids classifiers in learning particularly difficult samples, allowing them to produce better classification performance. We will compare the performance of AL-RidgeC to that of our proposed DeepFeatAL in Section 5.4.2.2. the performance of AL-RidgeC to that of our proposed DeepFeatAL in Section 5.4.2.2
FIGURE 5.3: DeepIcL vs SDAL using ACDNet on ESC-50 dataset Figure 5.3, which is generated from Table 5.2, shows that AL-RidgeC achieves the high- est prediction accuracy achieved by DeepIcL (i.e., 65.43%) in only 4 iterations on the ESC-50 dataset, saving ~43% of the labeling budget. At the end of seven human la- beling iterations, AL-RidgeC achieved the highest accuracy of 67.94%. The difference in prediction accuracy ensures that AL aids classifiers in learning particularly difficult samples, allowing them to produce better classification performance. We will compare the performance of AL-RidgeC to that of our proposed DeepFeatAL in Section 5.4.2.2. the performance of AL-RidgeC to that of our proposed DeepFeatAL in Section 5.4.2.2
TABLE 5.3: DeepIcL vs SDAL on US8K dataset The third dataset on which the same comparative analysis has been performed is iWingBeat. Figure 5.5, which is populated from Table 5.4, reveals that DeepIcL has the highest prediction accuracy. This scenario is clearly different from the previous two datasets. DeepIcL achieves 68.27% at the end of human annotation (simulated), which is higher
TABLE 5.3: DeepIcL vs SDAL on US8K dataset The third dataset on which the same comparative analysis has been performed is iWingBeat. Figure 5.5, which is populated from Table 5.4, reveals that DeepIcL has the highest prediction accuracy. This scenario is clearly different from the previous two datasets. DeepIcL achieves 68.27% at the end of human annotation (simulated), which is higher
FIGURE 5.4: DeepIcL vs SDAL on US8K dataset its performance to our proposed DeepFeatAL performance in Section 5.4.2.2. significantly better than DeepIcL. Furthermore, after only 2 iterations, AL-LogisticRes achieves the highest prediction accuracy achieved by DeepIcL (i.e., 88.19%), saving nearly 86.67% of the labeling budget. As US8K has accumulated more data, we have completec fifteen iterations of human labeling for incremental learning for ACDNet and the SDAI process. Since AL-LogisticReg outperforms AL-KNC most of the time, we will compart its performance to our proposed DeepFeatAL performance in Section 5.4.2.2.
FIGURE 5.4: DeepIcL vs SDAL on US8K dataset its performance to our proposed DeepFeatAL performance in Section 5.4.2.2. significantly better than DeepIcL. Furthermore, after only 2 iterations, AL-LogisticRes achieves the highest prediction accuracy achieved by DeepIcL (i.e., 88.19%), saving nearly 86.67% of the labeling budget. As US8K has accumulated more data, we have completec fifteen iterations of human labeling for incremental learning for ACDNet and the SDAI process. Since AL-LogisticReg outperforms AL-KNC most of the time, we will compart its performance to our proposed DeepFeatAL performance in Section 5.4.2.2.
TABLE 5.4: DeepIcL vs SDAL on iWingBeat dataset
TABLE 5.4: DeepIcL vs SDAL on iWingBeat dataset
FicuRE 5.5: DeepIcL vs SDAL on iWingBeat dataset compare the performance of DeepIcL with that of our proposed DeepFeat AL. than the accuracy of SDAL models (65.87%, 67.17% and 66.28%). Notably, the perfor: mance of the initial model and the model obtained after human annotations (simulated) and fine-tuning do not differ significantly. Since this dataset contains more labeled sam- ples than the previous two, we ran twenty human annotation (simulated) iterations. The performance of models using different learning techniques is shown in Table 5.4. We wil compare the performance of DeepIcL with that of our proposed DeepFeatAL.
FicuRE 5.5: DeepIcL vs SDAL on iWingBeat dataset compare the performance of DeepIcL with that of our proposed DeepFeat AL. than the accuracy of SDAL models (65.87%, 67.17% and 66.28%). Notably, the perfor: mance of the initial model and the model obtained after human annotations (simulated) and fine-tuning do not differ significantly. Since this dataset contains more labeled sam- ples than the previous two, we ran twenty human annotation (simulated) iterations. The performance of models using different learning techniques is shown in Table 5.4. We wil compare the performance of DeepIcL with that of our proposed DeepFeatAL.
TABLE 5.5: DeepIcL vs SDAL vs DeepFeatAL on All Datasets Furthermore, our significance test shows that the performance of the model produced by DeepFeatAL is statistically significant. We used the statistical significance test described in [44] to determine the statistical significance of the performance of each model. We begin by rejecting the null hypothesis using the Friedman test [188]. Then, we conduct a pairwise post-hoc analysis in accordance with Benavoli et al. [225], utilizing the Wilcoxon signed-rank test [189] and Holm’s alpha (5%) correction [226, 227]. We employ DemSar 228]’s Critical Difference (CD) diagram as a graphical representation. A thick horizontal ine in the CD diagram indicates that the accuracy of a group of classifiers is insignificant. ine in the CD diagram indicates that the accuracy of a group of classifiers is insignificant.
TABLE 5.5: DeepIcL vs SDAL vs DeepFeatAL on All Datasets Furthermore, our significance test shows that the performance of the model produced by DeepFeatAL is statistically significant. We used the statistical significance test described in [44] to determine the statistical significance of the performance of each model. We begin by rejecting the null hypothesis using the Friedman test [188]. Then, we conduct a pairwise post-hoc analysis in accordance with Benavoli et al. [225], utilizing the Wilcoxon signed-rank test [189] and Holm’s alpha (5%) correction [226, 227]. We employ DemSar 228]’s Critical Difference (CD) diagram as a graphical representation. A thick horizontal ine in the CD diagram indicates that the accuracy of a group of classifiers is insignificant. ine in the CD diagram indicates that the accuracy of a group of classifiers is insignificant.
FIGURE 5.6: AL-RidgeC vs DeepFeatAL on ESC-50 Figure 5.6 compares the performance of AL-RidgeC and DeepFeatAL on the ESC-5( dataset. At the end of the AL loops, DeepFeatAL achieves the highest prediction accu. racy. Its counterpart achieves better accuracy only after the fourth iteration. DeepFeat A] performs better in the remaining six cases. Additionally, the SDAL technique’s highest accuracy has been achieved in six iterations of DeepFeat AL, saving 14.28% of the labeling budget. Figure 5.7 displays the statistical significance of the final models obtained after complet- ing all human iterations for DeepIcL, SDAL, and DeepFeatAL on the ESC-50 dataset. According to the figure, all the models perform statistically significantly. It demonstrates that the model produced by DeepFeatAL outperforms other models produced by other methods and ranks first.
FIGURE 5.6: AL-RidgeC vs DeepFeatAL on ESC-50 Figure 5.6 compares the performance of AL-RidgeC and DeepFeatAL on the ESC-5( dataset. At the end of the AL loops, DeepFeatAL achieves the highest prediction accu. racy. Its counterpart achieves better accuracy only after the fourth iteration. DeepFeat A] performs better in the remaining six cases. Additionally, the SDAL technique’s highest accuracy has been achieved in six iterations of DeepFeat AL, saving 14.28% of the labeling budget. Figure 5.7 displays the statistical significance of the final models obtained after complet- ing all human iterations for DeepIcL, SDAL, and DeepFeatAL on the ESC-50 dataset. According to the figure, all the models perform statistically significantly. It demonstrates that the model produced by DeepFeatAL outperforms other models produced by other methods and ranks first.
FIGURE 5.7: CD diagram for statistical significance test of performance of different learning methods on ESC-50 dataset. methods and ranks first.
FIGURE 5.7: CD diagram for statistical significance test of performance of different learning methods on ESC-50 dataset. methods and ranks first.
FIGURE 5.8: AL-LogisticReg vs DeepFeatAL on US8K
FIGURE 5.8: AL-LogisticReg vs DeepFeatAL on US8K
FIGURE 5.9: CD diagram for statistical significance test of performance of different learning methods on US8K dataset.
FIGURE 5.9: CD diagram for statistical significance test of performance of different learning methods on US8K dataset.
FIGURE 5.10: DeepIcL vs DeepFeatAL on iWingBeat dataset Thus, it saves 50% of the labeling effort. Figure 5.10 compares the performance of DeepIcL, AL-LogisticReg and DeepFeatAL with respect to the iWingBeat dataset. It demonstrates that at the end of the AL loops, DeepFeatAL significantly outperforms its competitors. The highest accuracy achieved by DeepIcL was 68.27%, whereas DeepFeatAL achieved 68.86% after only ten iterations. Thus, it saves 50% of the labeling effort.
FIGURE 5.10: DeepIcL vs DeepFeatAL on iWingBeat dataset Thus, it saves 50% of the labeling effort. Figure 5.10 compares the performance of DeepIcL, AL-LogisticReg and DeepFeatAL with respect to the iWingBeat dataset. It demonstrates that at the end of the AL loops, DeepFeatAL significantly outperforms its competitors. The highest accuracy achieved by DeepIcL was 68.27%, whereas DeepFeatAL achieved 68.86% after only ten iterations. Thus, it saves 50% of the labeling effort.
These results are consistent with the results for the full-size network. Figure 5.12 generated from the data presented in Table 5.6 demonstrates that AL-LogisticRe and AL-RidgeC outperform DeepIcL after the second iteration. The highest accuracy produced by DeepIcL is 57.70 + 0.15%, whereas AL-LogisticReg achieves this accuracy after only three iterations; thus, saving more than 47% of the labeling budget. This difference in performance ensures that active learning assists classifiers in mastering par- ticularly difficult samples, ultimately resulting in improved classification performance. These results are consistent with the results for the full-size network. FIGURE 5.12: Edge-based DeepIcL vs SDAL on ESC-50 dataset
These results are consistent with the results for the full-size network. Figure 5.12 generated from the data presented in Table 5.6 demonstrates that AL-LogisticRe and AL-RidgeC outperform DeepIcL after the second iteration. The highest accuracy produced by DeepIcL is 57.70 + 0.15%, whereas AL-LogisticReg achieves this accuracy after only three iterations; thus, saving more than 47% of the labeling budget. This difference in performance ensures that active learning assists classifiers in mastering par- ticularly difficult samples, ultimately resulting in improved classification performance. These results are consistent with the results for the full-size network. FIGURE 5.12: Edge-based DeepIcL vs SDAL on ESC-50 dataset
TABLE 5.6: Edge-based DeepIcL vs SDAL on ESC-50 dataset for this dataset.
TABLE 5.6: Edge-based DeepIcL vs SDAL on ESC-50 dataset for this dataset.
FIGURE 5.13: Edge-based DeepIcL vs SDAL on US8K dataset Same comparative analysis was carried out on the US8K dataset. Figure 5.13 demon- strates that during incremental learning, DeepIcL produces the highest prediction ac- curacy of 83.13%. In contrast, AL-LogisticReg, achieves this level of accuracy afte only nine rounds of human la beling, thus, saving 40% of the labeling budget. Table 5.7 displays 95%CI for all the models. After fifteen iterations of human annotation (sim- ulated), DeepIcL achieves a prediction accuracy of 82.63 + 0.06%, whereas AL-KNC AL-LogisticReg and AL-RidgeC achieve 83.15+0.06%, 83.27 +0.06% and 82.10+0.06% respectively. As a result, AL- as well. LogisticReg produces the highest accuracy for this dataset
FIGURE 5.13: Edge-based DeepIcL vs SDAL on US8K dataset Same comparative analysis was carried out on the US8K dataset. Figure 5.13 demon- strates that during incremental learning, DeepIcL produces the highest prediction ac- curacy of 83.13%. In contrast, AL-LogisticReg, achieves this level of accuracy afte only nine rounds of human la beling, thus, saving 40% of the labeling budget. Table 5.7 displays 95%CI for all the models. After fifteen iterations of human annotation (sim- ulated), DeepIcL achieves a prediction accuracy of 82.63 + 0.06%, whereas AL-KNC AL-LogisticReg and AL-RidgeC achieve 83.15+0.06%, 83.27 +0.06% and 82.10+0.06% respectively. As a result, AL- as well. LogisticReg produces the highest accuracy for this dataset
TABLE 5.7: Edge-based DeepIcL vs SDAL on US8K dataset
TABLE 5.7: Edge-based DeepIcL vs SDAL on US8K dataset
FiIGuRE 5.14: Edge-based DeepIcL vs SDAL on iWingBeat Dataset in previous section as well.
FiIGuRE 5.14: Edge-based DeepIcL vs SDAL on iWingBeat Dataset in previous section as well.
TABLE 5.8: Edge-based DeepIcL vs SDAL on iWingBeat dataset
TABLE 5.8: Edge-based DeepIcL vs SDAL on iWingBeat dataset
TABLE 5.9: Edge-based DeepIcL vs SDAL vs DeepFeatAL on all the datasets
TABLE 5.9: Edge-based DeepIcL vs SDAL vs DeepFeatAL on all the datasets
FIGURE 5.15: Edge-based AL-LogisticReg vs DeepFeatAL on ESC-50 dataset
FIGURE 5.15: Edge-based AL-LogisticReg vs DeepFeatAL on ESC-50 dataset
ranks first. FIGURE 5.16: CD diagram for statistical significance test of performance of different learning methods on ESC-50 dataset.
ranks first. FIGURE 5.16: CD diagram for statistical significance test of performance of different learning methods on ESC-50 dataset.
FIGURE 5.17: Edge-based AL-LogisticReg vs DeepFeatAL on US8K dataset he same comparison is shown in Figure 5.17 between the performance of AL-LogisticReg ad DeepFeatAL on the US8K dataset. It is evident that during the AL process, eepFeatAL always produces the most accurate predictions. In fact, the highest level of ccuracy achieved by AL-LogisticReg is 83.38%, whereas DeepFeatAL achieved a higher vel of accuracy after only five iterations (83.56%). Thus, the labeling effort is reduced y 66.67%.
FIGURE 5.17: Edge-based AL-LogisticReg vs DeepFeatAL on US8K dataset he same comparison is shown in Figure 5.17 between the performance of AL-LogisticReg ad DeepFeatAL on the US8K dataset. It is evident that during the AL process, eepFeatAL always produces the most accurate predictions. In fact, the highest level of ccuracy achieved by AL-LogisticReg is 83.38%, whereas DeepFeatAL achieved a higher vel of accuracy after only five iterations (83.56%). Thus, the labeling effort is reduced y 66.67%.
and ranks first. Figure 5.19 presents the same performance comparison between DeepIcL and DeepFeat AL on the iWingBeat dataset. It clearly reveals that during human annotation (simulated) iterations, DeepFeatAL almost always produces the highest prediction accuracy. The highest accuracy achieved by DeepIcL was achieved by DeepFeatAL after only eight iterations. Consequently, the labeling effort is reduced by 60%.
and ranks first. Figure 5.19 presents the same performance comparison between DeepIcL and DeepFeat AL on the iWingBeat dataset. It clearly reveals that during human annotation (simulated) iterations, DeepFeatAL almost always produces the highest prediction accuracy. The highest accuracy achieved by DeepIcL was achieved by DeepFeatAL after only eight iterations. Consequently, the labeling effort is reduced by 60%.
FIGURE 5.19: Edge-based DeepIcL vs DeepFeatAL on iWingBeat dataset
FIGURE 5.19: Edge-based DeepIcL vs DeepFeatAL on iWingBeat dataset
FIGURE 5.20: CD diagram for statistical significance test of performance of different learning methods on iWingBeat dataset. DeepFeatAL outperforms other models produced by other methods and ranks first.
FIGURE 5.20: CD diagram for statistical significance test of performance of different learning methods on iWingBeat dataset. DeepFeatAL outperforms other models produced by other methods and ranks first.
For rolling recognition, we applied the trained model to the test set (49h of continuous recordings). Four criteria were used during the post-processing stage. The first one is 80% overlapping samples that are predicted to be true (Algorithm 3). And the rest are a sequence of two, three, and four samples (Algorithm 4) predicted to be true.
For rolling recognition, we applied the trained model to the test set (49h of continuous recordings). Four criteria were used during the post-processing stage. The first one is 80% overlapping samples that are predicted to be true (Algorithm 3). And the rest are a sequence of two, three, and four samples (Algorithm 4) predicted to be true.
TABLE 6.1: Classification of 49h continuous audio recording Table 6.1 shows the outcome of this post-processing. The resul are quite impressive. The figures in the Recall column, on that impressive. In addition, the F'N rates are extremely hig ts in the Accuracy colum1 the other hand, are no h. Although the FP rat« decreases as you progress to the last rows, the other parameters, such as Recall anc FN rates, increase significantly. These findings show that, des pite a high accuracy rate we have unacceptable FP and FN rates for a real-world application. The impressiv accuracy figure is due to the fact that the test set contains only 0.23% BTF calls anc the remaining 99.77% are BGS.
TABLE 6.1: Classification of 49h continuous audio recording Table 6.1 shows the outcome of this post-processing. The resul are quite impressive. The figures in the Recall column, on that impressive. In addition, the F'N rates are extremely hig ts in the Accuracy colum1 the other hand, are no h. Although the FP rat« decreases as you progress to the last rows, the other parameters, such as Recall anc FN rates, increase significantly. These findings show that, des pite a high accuracy rate we have unacceptable FP and FN rates for a real-world application. The impressiv accuracy figure is due to the fact that the test set contains only 0.23% BTF calls anc the remaining 99.77% are BGS.
TABLE 6.2: Training set, validation set and test set details The remaining audio files (6 audio files) are used to create a test set. For each of the six audio files, there is a subset in the test set. Each subset has approximately ~72,000 overlapping samples. There are 426 overlapping BTF calls in the six files (107 actual calls). The details of the training, validation and test sets are presented in Table 6.2.
TABLE 6.2: Training set, validation set and test set details The remaining audio files (6 audio files) are used to create a test set. For each of the six audio files, there is a subset in the test set. Each subset has approximately ~72,000 overlapping samples. There are 426 overlapping BTF calls in the six files (107 actual calls). The details of the training, validation and test sets are presented in Table 6.2.
TABLE 6.3: Results after post-processing of the predictions from ACDNet achieved from the above process. We applied the trained models to detect the presence of BTF calls in six audio files (2h each). Post-processing the result from ACDNet yields 21 TPs and 8 FPs. That is, only 29 five-second audio segments, which is 2m 25s out of 12h, are handed to human experts for further verification. In the case of Micro-ACDNet, the post-processing yields 16 TPs and 14 FPs. Despite having fewer TPs and more FPs, it does not miss any file with BTF call. Only 30 five-second audio segments, which is 2.5m out of 12h, are handed to human experts for further verification. Table 6.3 and Table 6.4 present the results achieved from the above process.
TABLE 6.3: Results after post-processing of the predictions from ACDNet achieved from the above process. We applied the trained models to detect the presence of BTF calls in six audio files (2h each). Post-processing the result from ACDNet yields 21 TPs and 8 FPs. That is, only 29 five-second audio segments, which is 2m 25s out of 12h, are handed to human experts for further verification. In the case of Micro-ACDNet, the post-processing yields 16 TPs and 14 FPs. Despite having fewer TPs and more FPs, it does not miss any file with BTF call. Only 30 five-second audio segments, which is 2.5m out of 12h, are handed to human experts for further verification. Table 6.3 and Table 6.4 present the results achieved from the above process.
TABLE 6.4: Results after post-processing of the predictions from Micro-ACDNet
TABLE 6.4: Results after post-processing of the predictions from Micro-ACDNet
TABLE 6.5: Results after post-processing of the predictions from Micro-ACDNet trained on only 34h (i.e., 17 files) of audio recording.
TABLE 6.5: Results after post-processing of the predictions from Micro-ACDNet trained on only 34h (i.e., 17 files) of audio recording.
FIGURE 6.1: No. of samples known before and after retraining with the 1,000 newly annotated samples
FIGURE 6.1: No. of samples known before and after retraining with the 1,000 newly annotated samples
FIGURE 6.2: Retraining vs DeepFeatAL performance
FIGURE 6.2: Retraining vs DeepFeatAL performance
TABLE 6.7: Results after post-processing of the predictions from Micro-ACDNet 6.7 Conclusion
TABLE 6.7: Results after post-processing of the predictions from Micro-ACDNet 6.7 Conclusion
Related topics:
Machine LearningAudio Classification deep convolutional neural network
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved