Sound event detection
in real life audio


Task description

Challenge has ended. Full results for this task can be found here

Description

This task evaluates performance of the sound event detection systems in multisource conditions similar to our everyday life, where the sound sources are rarely heard in isolation. Contrary to task 2, there is no control over the number of overlapping sound events at each time, not in the training nor in the testing audio data.

Figure 1: Overview of sound event detection system.

Audio dataset

TUT Sound events 2016 dataset will be used for task 3. Audio in the dataset is a subset of TUT Acoustic scenes 2016 dataset (used for task 1). The TUT Sound events 2016 dataset consisting of recordings from two acoustic scenes:

  • Home (indoor)
  • Residential area (outdoor).

These acoustic scenes were selected to represent common environments of interest in applications for safety and surveillance (outside home) and human activity monitoring or home surveillance.

The dataset was collected in Finland by Tampere University of Technology between 06/2015 - 01/2016. The data collection has received funding from the European Research Council.

ERC

Recording and annotation procedure

The recordings were captured each in a different location: different streets, different homes. For each recording location, 3-5 minute long audio recording was captured. The equipment used for recording consists of a binaural Soundman OKM II Klassik/studio A3 electret in-ear microphone and a Roland Edirol R-09 wave recorder using 44.1 kHz sampling rate and 24 bit resolution. For audio material recorded in private places, written consent was obtained from all people involved.

Individual sound events in each recording were annotated by two research assistants using freely chosen labels for sounds. Nouns were used to characterize each sound source, and verbs the sound production mechanism, whenever this was possible. Annotators were trained first on few example recordings. They were instructed to annotate all audible sound events, decide the start time and end time of the sounds as they see fit, and choose event labels freely. This resulted in a large set of raw labels. There was no verification of the annotations and no evaluation of annotator inter-annotator agreement due to the high level of subjectivity inherent to the problem.

Target sound event classes were selected based on the frequency of the obtained labels, to ensure that the selected sounds are common for an acoustic scene, and there are sufficient examples for learning acoustic models. Mapping of the raw labels was performed, merging for example "car engine running" to "engine running", and grouping various impact sounds with only verb description such as "banging", "clacking" into "object impact".

Selected sound event classes:

Home

  • (object) Rustling
  • (object) Snapping
  • Cupboard
  • Cutlery
  • Dishes
  • Drawer
  • Glass jingling
  • Object impact
  • People walking
  • Washing dishes
  • Water tap running

Residential area

  • (object) Banging
  • Bird singing
  • Car passing by
  • Children shouting
  • People speaking
  • People walking
  • Wind blowing

For residential area, the sound event classes are mostly related to concrete physical sound sources - bird singing, car passing by. Home scenes are dominated by abstract object impact sounds, besides some more well defined sound events (still impact) like dishes, cutlery, etc.

Challenge setup

TUT Sound events 2016 dataset consists of two subsets: development dataset and evaluation dataset. Partitioning of data into these subsets was done based on the amount of examples available for each sound event class, while also taking into account recording location. Ideally the subsets should have the same amount of data for each class, or at least the same relative amount, such as a 70-30% split. Because the event instances belonging to different classes are distributed unevenly within the recordings, the partitioning of individual classes can be controlled only to a certain extent.

The split condition was relaxed from 70-30%. For home, 40-80% of instances of each class were selected into the development set. For residential area, 60-80% of instances of each class were selected into the development set.

Participants are not allowed to use external data for system development. Manipulation of provided data is allowed. Acoustic scene label can be used as external information in the detection (acoustic scene-dependent sound event detection system).

Download

Development dataset


Evaluation dataset


In publications using the datasets, cite as:

Publication

Annamaria Mesaros, Toni Heittola, and Tuomas Virtanen. TUT database for acoustic scene classification and sound event detection. In 24th European Signal Processing Conference 2016 (EUSIPCO 2016). Budapest, Hungary, 2016.

PDF

TUT Database for Acoustic Scene Classification and Sound Event Detection

Abstract

We introduce TUT Acoustic Scenes 2016 database for environmental sound research, consisting ofbinaural recordings from 15 different acoustic environments. A subset of this database, called TUT Sound Events 2016, contains annotations for individual sound events, specifically created for sound event detection. TUT Sound Events 2016 consists of residential area and home environments, and is manually annotated to mark onset, offset and label of sound events. In this paper we present the recording and annotation procedure, the database content, a recommended cross-validation setup and performance of supervised acoustic scene classification system and event detection baseline system using mel frequency cepstral coefficients and Gaussian mixture models. The database is publicly released to provide support for algorithm development and common ground for comparison of different techniques.

PDF

Cross-validation with development dataset

A cross-validation setup is provided in order to make results reported with this dataset uniform. The setup consists of four folds, so that each recording is used exactly once as test data. While creating the cross-validation folds, the only condition imposed was that the test subset does not contain classes unavailable in training subset. The folds are provided with the dataset in the directory evaluation_setup.

Submission

Detailed information for the challenge submission can found from submission page.

One should submit single text-file (in CSV format) per evaluated acoustic scene (home and residential area), each file containing detected sound event from each audio file. Events can be in any order. Format:

[filename (string)][tab][event onset time in seconds (float)][tab][event offset time in seconds (float)][tab][event label (string)]

Task rules

  • Only the provided development dataset can be used to train the submitted system.
  • The development dataset can be augmented only by mixing data sampled from a pdf; use of real recordings is forbidden.
  • The evaluation dataset cannot be used to train the submitted system; the use of statistics about the evaluation dataset in the decision making is also forbidden.
  • Technical report with sufficient description of the system has to be submitted along with the system outputs.

More information on submission process.

Evaluation

Total error rate (ER) is the main metric for this task. Error rate will be evaluated in one-second segments over the entire test set. Ranking of submitted systems will be done using this metric. Additionally, other metrics will be calculated.

Detailed description of metrics can be found here.

Code for evaluation is available with the baseline system:

  • Python implementation from src.evaluation import DCASE2016_EventDetection_SegmentBasedMetrics and from src.evaluation import DCASE2016_EventDetection_EventBasedMetrics.
  • Matlab implementation, use classes src/evaluation/DCASE2016_EventDetection_SegmentBasedMetrics.m and src/evaluation/DCASE2016_EventDetection_EventBasedMetrics.m.

sed_eval - Evaluation toolbox for Sound Event Detection

sed_eval contains same metrics as baseline system, and they are tested to give same values. Use parameters time_resolution=1 and t_collar=0.250 to align it with the baseline system results.


Results

Rank Submission Information Corresponding Technical
Report
Segment-based (overall)
Code Name Author Affiliation ER F1
task-results-sound-event-detection-in-real-life-audio#Adavanne2016 Adavanne_task3_1 adavanne_IID Sharath Adavanne Department of Signal Processing, Tampere University of Technology, Tampere, Finland 0.8051 47.8
task-results-sound-event-detection-in-real-life-audio#Adavanne2016 Adavanne_task3_2 adavanne_IITD Sharath Adavanne Department of Signal Processing, Tampere University of Technology, Tampere, Finland 0.8887 37.9
task-results-sound-event-detection-in-real-life-audio#Heittola2016 DCASE2016 baseline DCASE2016_baseline Toni Heittola Department of Signal Processing, Tampere University of Technology, Tampere, Finland 0.8773 34.3
task-results-sound-event-detection-in-real-life-audio#Elizalde2016 Elizalde_task3_1 CMU_G_v3 Benjamin Elizalde Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA 1.0730 22.5
task-results-sound-event-detection-in-real-life-audio#Elizalde2016 Elizalde_task3_2 CMU_G_v4 Benjamin Elizalde Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA 1.1056 20.8
task-results-sound-event-detection-in-real-life-audio#Elizalde2016 Elizalde_task3_3 CMU_G+P_v3 Benjamin Elizalde Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA 0.9635 33.3
task-results-sound-event-detection-in-real-life-audio#Elizalde2016 Elizalde_task3_4 CMU_G+P_v4 Benjamin Elizalde Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA 0.9613 33.6
task-results-sound-event-detection-in-real-life-audio#Gorin2016 Gorin_task3_1 act Arseniy Gorin ACTechnologies LLC, Moscow, Russia 0.9799 41.1
task-results-sound-event-detection-in-real-life-audio#Kong2016 Kong_task3_1 QK Qiuqiang Kong Centre for Vision, Speech and Signal Processing, University of Surrey, Surrey, United Kingdom 0.9557 36.3
task-results-sound-event-detection-in-real-life-audio#Kroos2016 Kroos_task3_1 RandB Christian Kroos Centre for Vision, Speech and Signal Processing (CVSSP), University of Surrey, Surrey, SUnited Kingdom 1.1488 16.8
task-results-sound-event-detection-in-real-life-audio#Lai2016 Liu_task3_1 BW#3 Christian Kroos Centre for Vision, Speech and Signal Processing (CVSSP), University of Surrey, Surrey, SUnited Kingdom 0.9287 34.5
task-results-sound-event-detection-in-real-life-audio#Dai2016 Pham_task3_1 Phuong Pham University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, USA 0.9583 11.6
task-results-sound-event-detection-in-real-life-audio#Phan2016 Phan_task3_1 CaR-FOREST Huy Phan Institute for Signal Processing, University of Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany; Graduate School for Computing in Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany 0.9644 23.9
task-results-sound-event-detection-in-real-life-audio#Schroeder2016 Schroeder_task3_1 Jens Schröder Fraunhofer Institute for Digital Media Technology IDMT, Oldenburg, Germany; Cluster of Excellence, Hearing4all, Germany 1.3092 33.6
task-results-sound-event-detection-in-real-life-audio#Ubskii2016 Ubskii_task3_1 Dmitrii Ubskii Chair of Speech Information Systems, ITMO University, St. Petersburg, Russia 0.9971 39.6
task-results-sound-event-detection-in-real-life-audio#Vu2016 Vu_task3_1 Toan H. Vu Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Central University, Taoyuan, Taiwan 0.9124 41.9
task-results-sound-event-detection-in-real-life-audio#Zoehrer2016 Zoehrer_task3_1 Matthias Zöhrer Signal Processing and Speech Communication Laboratory, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria 0.9056 39.6

Complete results and technical reports can be found at Task 3 result page

Baseline system

The baseline system for the task is provided. The system is meant to implement basic approach for sound event detection, and provide some comparison point for the participants while developing their systems. The baseline systems for task 1 and task 3 share the code base, and implements quite similar approach for both tasks. The baseline system will download the needed datasets and produces the results below when ran with the default parameters.

The baseline system is based on MFCC acoustic features and GMM classifier. The acoustic features include MFCC static coefficients (0th coefficient excluded), delta coefficients and acceleration coefficients. For each event class, a binary classifier is set up. The class model is trained using the audio segments annotated as belonging to the modeled event class, and a negative model is trained using the rest of the audio. The decision is based on likelihood ratio between the positive and negative models for each individual class, with a sliding window of one second.

The baseline system provides also reference implementation of evaluation metrics. Baseline systems are provided for both Python and Matlab. Python implementation is regarded as the main implementation.

Participants are allowed to build their system on top of the given baseline systems. The systems have all needed functionality for dataset handling, storing / accessing features and models, and evaluating the results, making the adaptation for one's needs rather easy. The baseline systems are also good starting point for entry level researchers.

In publications using the baseline, cite as:

Publication

Annamaria Mesaros, Toni Heittola, and Tuomas Virtanen. TUT database for acoustic scene classification and sound event detection. In 24th European Signal Processing Conference 2016 (EUSIPCO 2016). Budapest, Hungary, 2016.

PDF

TUT Database for Acoustic Scene Classification and Sound Event Detection

Abstract

We introduce TUT Acoustic Scenes 2016 database for environmental sound research, consisting ofbinaural recordings from 15 different acoustic environments. A subset of this database, called TUT Sound Events 2016, contains annotations for individual sound events, specifically created for sound event detection. TUT Sound Events 2016 consists of residential area and home environments, and is manually annotated to mark onset, offset and label of sound events. In this paper we present the recording and annotation procedure, the database content, a recommended cross-validation setup and performance of supervised acoustic scene classification system and event detection baseline system using mel frequency cepstral coefficients and Gaussian mixture models. The database is publicly released to provide support for algorithm development and common ground for comparison of different techniques.

PDF

Python implementation


Matlab implementation


Results for TUT Sound events 2016, development set

Evaluation setup

  • 4-fold cross-validation

System parameters

  • Frame size: 40 ms (with 50% hop size)
  • Number of Gaussians per sound event model (positive and negative): 16
  • Feature vector: 20 MFCC static coefficients (excluding 0th) + 20 delta MFCC coefficients + 20 acceleration MFCC coefficients = 60 values

PLEASE NOTE: The four cross-validation folds are treated as single experiment, meaning that metrics are calculated only after training and testing all folds (not calculating fold-wise metric). Intermediate measures (insertion, deletion, substitution) from all folds are accumulated for calculating error rate. More details

Sound event detection results over evaluation folds.
Segment-based overall metrics
Acoustic scene ER F-score
Home 0.96 15.9 %
Residential area 0.86 31.5 %
Average 0.91 23.7 %

Citation

If you are using the dataset or baseline code please cite the following paper:

Publication

Annamaria Mesaros, Toni Heittola, and Tuomas Virtanen. TUT database for acoustic scene classification and sound event detection. In 24th European Signal Processing Conference 2016 (EUSIPCO 2016). Budapest, Hungary, 2016.

PDF

TUT Database for Acoustic Scene Classification and Sound Event Detection

Abstract

We introduce TUT Acoustic Scenes 2016 database for environmental sound research, consisting ofbinaural recordings from 15 different acoustic environments. A subset of this database, called TUT Sound Events 2016, contains annotations for individual sound events, specifically created for sound event detection. TUT Sound Events 2016 consists of residential area and home environments, and is manually annotated to mark onset, offset and label of sound events. In this paper we present the recording and annotation procedure, the database content, a recommended cross-validation setup and performance of supervised acoustic scene classification system and event detection baseline system using mel frequency cepstral coefficients and Gaussian mixture models. The database is publicly released to provide support for algorithm development and common ground for comparison of different techniques.

PDF


When citing challenge task and results please cite the following paper:

Publication

A. Mesaros, T. Heittola, E. Benetos, P. Foster, M. Lagrange, T. Virtanen, and M. D. Plumbley. Detection and classification of acoustic scenes and events: outcome of the DCASE 2016 challenge. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 26(2):379–393, Feb 2018. doi:10.1109/TASLP.2017.2778423.

PDF

Detection and Classification of Acoustic Scenes and Events: Outcome of the DCASE 2016 Challenge

Abstract

Public evaluation campaigns and datasets promote active development in target research areas, allowing direct comparison of algorithms. The second edition of the challenge on detection and classification of acoustic scenes and events (DCASE 2016) has offered such an opportunity for development of the state-of-the-art methods, and succeeded in drawing together a large number of participants from academic and industrial backgrounds. In this paper, we report on the tasks and outcomes of the DCASE 2016 challenge. The challenge comprised four tasks: acoustic scene classification, sound event detection in synthetic audio, sound event detection in real-life audio, and domestic audio tagging. We present each task in detail and analyze the submitted systems in terms of design and performance. We observe the emergence of deep learning as the most popular classification method, replacing the traditional approaches based on Gaussian mixture models and support vector machines. By contrast, feature representations have not changed substantially throughout the years, as mel frequency-based representations predominate in all tasks. The datasets created for and used in DCASE 2016 are publicly available and are a valuable resource for further research.

Keywords

Acoustics;Event detection;Hidden Markov models;Speech;Speech processing;Tagging;Acoustic scene classification;audio datasets;pattern recognition;sound event detection

PDF