Papers › Crowdsourcing and Evaluating Text-Based Audio Retrieval Relevances

Crowdsourcing and Evaluating Text-Based Audio Retrieval Relevances

16 Jun 2023arXiv:2306.09820archive 2025-07-28

Huang Xie, Khazar Khorrami, Okko Räsänen, Tuomas Virtanen

This paper explores grading text-based audio retrieval relevances with crowdsourcing assessments. Given a free-form text (e.g., a caption) as a query, crowdworkers are asked to grade audio clips using numeric scores (between 0 and 100) to indicate their judgements of how much the sound content of an audio clip matches the text, where 0 indicates no content match at all and 100 indicates perfect content match. We integrate the crowdsourced relevances into training and evaluating text-based audio retrieval systems, and evaluate the effect of using them together with binary relevances from audio captioning. Conventionally, these binary relevances are defined by captioning-based audio-caption pairs, where being positive indicates that the caption describes the paired audio, and being negative applies to all other pairs. Experimental results indicate that there is no clear benefit from incorporating crowdsourced relevances alongside binary relevances when the crowdsourced relevances are binarized for contrastive learning. Conversely, the results suggest that using only binary relevances defined by captioning-based audio-caption pairs is sufficient for contrastive learning.

PaperPDFCode

Code

xieh97/retrieval-relevance-crowdsourcing officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHub report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

Audio captioningContrastive LearningRetrieval

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

CLIP

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections