1. Educational Software using Audio to Score Alignment Antoine Gomas supervised by Dr. Tim Collins & Pr. Corinne Mailhes 7 th of September, 2007

2. 1 Agenda Introduction Objectives Review & Innovation Work  Dynamic Time Warping  Hidden Markov Models  Interface Conclusion

3. 2 Audio to score alignment? Associate  Notes in a score  Timing points in a recording Example

4. 3 Project objectives Implement a monophonic audio to score alignment algorithm Evaluate characteristics of the performance Design a learning interface to help music students improve their performance

5. 4 Review (1) Previous work  Algorithms already exist  Similar to Spoken Language Processing  Application: musicology  Professional recordings

6. 5 Review (2) Previous work (continued)  Dynamic Time Warping Few parameters Heavy Low flexibility  Hidden Markov Models Very flexible Large number of parameters (training)

7. 6 Review (3) Innovation  Apply to educational software  Requires modifications & new functionalities Cope with errors Detect errors

8. 7 Work Dynamic Time Warping Hidden Markov Models ITS & Interface design

9. 8 DTW (1) Overview Get a first version to work Attack, Sustain, Silence Uses Dynamic Time Warping

10. 9 DTW (2) Structure Feature extraction Distance matrix Find optimal path

11. 10 DTW (3) Instrument model Silence  Energy Attack   Energy Sustain Guitar Vibes

12. 11 DTW (4) Results ~95% notes aligned on “good” performances Rhythm errors  Very high tolerance  Provided pitches are correct Pitch errors  Tuning errors: no problem  Note errors: OK Good results, but limitations

13. 12 DTW (5) Limitations Impossible to recover from severe student mistakes Self-correction not perfect

14. 13 HMM (1) Why? Expected  Lower computing requirements  Flexibility to recover from student’s errors And also  Use state-of-the-art techniques  Find connections with SLP

15. 14 HMM (2) Application to ASA HMM  Observed symbols  State trellis  Emission matrix  Decoded sequence ASA  Recording frames  Score representation  Instrument model  Performance image

16. 15 HMM (3) Flexibility Note 6 D 6, P 6 1-p 12 1 Note 1 D 1, P 1 Note 2 D 2, P 2 Note 3 D 3, P 3 Note 4 D 4, P 4 Note 5 D 5, P 5 p 12 p 23 11 Note 1 D 1, P 1 Note 2 D 2, P 2 Note 3 D 3, P 3 Note 4 D 4, P 4 Note 5 D 5, P 5 p 23 11p 12 Note 7 D’ 3, P 3 Note 8 D’ 4, P 4 1-p 23 1 1 Note 6 D 2, P’ 2 1-p 12 1-p 63 p 63 1-p 23

17. 16 HMM (4) Results 100% on rhythmic recordings Good on melodic recordings Rhythm errors  Good tolerance, though inferior to DTW Pitch errors  No data Severe mistakes  Fine when anticipated Self correction  More robust than DTW  Tempo estimation not critical

18. 17 HMM (5) Extensions Pitch Other note topologies Improve speed  Local algorithm  Language Waiting state

19. 18 ITS & Interface (1) Intelligent Tutoring Systems Knowledge models  Domain model  Learner model Open Learner Model DM LM Teaching strategies DM LM Teaching strategies OverlayPerturbation

20. 19 ITS & Interface (2)

21. 20 Conclusion DTW not suitable for education Promising HMM results  Works without pitch  Additional paths for anticipated errors Still room for improvements  Pitch  Computation efficiency Coherent ground together with IF design

22. 21 Thank you for listening Any questions?