Paper dossier

A Case for Reproducibility in MIR: Replication of 'A Highly Robust Audio Fingerprinting System'

Detail viewSimilarity handoff

Review source metadata, abstract, authors, topics, and local similarity context before moving into explanation and ranking views.

Paper year

2018

Citations

1

Authors

3

Topic labels

3

Source readout

Source and corpus status

Venue

Transactions of the International Society for Music Information Retrieval

Source slug

tismir

Corpus placement

Core corpus

Similarity rows

6

Ranking readout

Where this paper lands in the current run

Ranking details could not be loaded (API 503).

Abstract

Claims made in many Music Information Retrieval (MIR) publications are hard to verify due to the fact that (i) often only a textual description is made available and code remains unpublished - leaving many implementation issues uncovered; (ii) copyrights on music limit the sharing of datasets; and (iii) incentives to put effort into reproducible research - publishing and documenting code and specifics on data - is lacking.In this article the problems around reproducibility are illustrated by replicating an MIR work. The system and evaluation described in 'A Highly Robust Audio Fingerprinting System' is replicated as closely as possible. The replication is done with several goals in mind: to describe difficulties in replicating the work and subsequently reflect on guidelines around reproducible research. Added contributions are the verification of the reported work, a publicly available implementation and an evaluation method that is reproducible.

Authors

  • Joren Six
  • Federica Bressan
  • Marc Leman

Neighborhood labels

Topics

3 labels

Topic labels are imported metadata and can be noisy; use them as coarse navigation hints, not authoritative classifications.

Music and Audio ProcessingDigital Humanities and ScholarshipDigital and Traditional Archives Management

Neighbor surface

Similar papers

6 total neighborsEmbedding v1-title-abstract-1536-cleantext-r3

Similar papers use a separately configured neighbor embedding; it may differ from the embedding version used by the current ranked run.

Next handoff

Best next moves from here

01

Check recommendation families

Use Recommended to see whether this paper behaves like an emerging or undercited signal in the current ranked feed, or how it appears on the bridge preview / diagnostics view.

02

Inspect nearby topics

Use Trends to understand whether its attached labels are heating up or cooling down inside the curated corpus.

03

Cross-check evaluation baselines

Use Evaluation to compare the dossier readout against citation and recency baselines for the same resolved family run.