2010 CRC PhD Student Conference



                  Discovering translational patterns
                 in symbolic repre...
2010 CRC PhD Student Conference



                                 TWO IMPROVEMENTS

Current methods for pattern discover...
2010 CRC PhD Student Conference



3. Cope, D., Computational models of musical creativity (Cambridge Massachusetts:
MIT P...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Collins

323 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
323
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Collins

  1. 1. 2010 CRC PhD Student Conference Discovering translational patterns in symbolic representations of music Tom Collins http://users.mct.open.ac.uk/tec69 Supervisors Robin Laney Alistair Willis Paul Garthwaite Department/Institute Centre for Research in Computing Status Fulltime Probation viva After Starting date October 2008 RESEARCH QUESTION How can current methods for pattern discovery in music be improved and integrated into an automated composition system? The presentation will address the first half of this research question: how can current methods for pattern discovery in music be improved? INTRA-OPUS PATTERN DISCOVERY Suppose that you wish to get to know a particular piece of music, and that you have a copy of the score of the piece or a MIDI file. (Scores and MIDI files are symbolic representations of music and are the focus of my presentation, as opposed to sound recordings.) Typically, to become familiar with a piece, one listens to the MIDI file or studies/plays through the score, gaining an appreciation of where and how material is repeated, and perhaps also gaining an appreciation of the underlying structure. The literature contains several algorithmic approaches to this task, referred to as ‘intra-opus’ pattern discovery [2, 4, 5]. Given a piece of music in a symbolic representation, the aim is to define and evaluate an algorithm that discovers and returns patterns occurring within the piece. Some potential applications for such an algorithm are as follows: • A pattern discovery tool to aid music students. • Comparing an algorithm’s discoveries with those of a music expert as a means of investigating human perception of music. • Stylistic composition (the process of writing in the style of another composer or period) assisted by using the patterns/structure returned by a pattern discovery algorithm [1, 3]. Page 9 of 125
  2. 2. 2010 CRC PhD Student Conference TWO IMPROVEMENTS Current methods for pattern discovery in music can be improved in two ways: 1. The way in which the algorithm’s discoveries are displayed for a user can be improved. 2. A new algorithm can be said to improve upon existing algorithms if, according to standard metrics, it is the strongest-performing algorithm on a certain task. Addressing the first area for improvement, suppose that an algorithm has discovered hundreds of patterns within a piece of music. Now these must be presented to the user, but in what order? Various formulae have been proposed for rating a discovered pattern, based on variables that quantify attributes of that pattern and the piece of music in which it appears [2, 4]. To my knowledge, none have been derived or validated empirically. So I conducted a study in which music undergraduates examined excerpts taken from Chopin’s mazurkas and were instructed to rate already- discovered patterns, giving high ratings to patterns that they thought were noticeable and/or important. A model useful for relating participants’ ratings to the attributes was determined using variable selection and cross-validation. This model leads to a new formula for rating discovered patterns, and the basis for this formula constitutes a methodological improvement. Addressing the second area for improvement, I asked a music analyst to analyse two sonatas by Domenico Scarlatti and two preludes by Johann Sebastian Bach. The brief was similar to the intra-opus discovery task described above: given a piece of music in staff notation, discover translational patterns that occur within the piece. Thus, a benchmark of translational patterns was formed for each piece, the criteria for benchmark membership being left largely to the analyst’s discretion. Three algorithms—SIA [5], COSIATEC [4] and my own, SIACT—were run on the same pieces and their performance was evaluated in terms of recall and precision. If an algorithm discovers x of the y patterns discovered by the analyst then its recall is x/y. If the algorithm also returns z patterns that are not in the analyst’s benchmark then the algorithm’s precision is x/(x + z). It was found that my algorithm, SIACT, out- performs the existing algorithms with regard to recall and, more often than not, precision. My presentation will give the definition of a translational pattern, discuss the improvements outlined above, and demonstrate how these improvements are being brought together in a user interface. SELECTED REFERENCES 1. Collins, T., R. Laney, A. Willis, and P.H. Garthwaite, ‘Using discovered, polyphonic patterns to filter computer-generated music’, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Creativity, Lisbon (2010), 1-10. 2. Conklin, D., and M. Bergeron, ‘Feature set patterns in music’, in Computer Music Journal 32(1) (2008), 60-70. Page 10 of 125
  3. 3. 2010 CRC PhD Student Conference 3. Cope, D., Computational models of musical creativity (Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2005). 4. Meredith, D., K. Lemström, and G.A. Wiggins, ‘Algorithms for discovering repeated patterns in multidimensional representations of polyphonic music’, in Cambridge Music Processing Colloquium, Cambridge (2003), 11 pages. 5. Meredith, D., K. Lemström, and G.A. Wiggins, ‘Algorithms for discovering repeated patterns in multidimensional representations of polyphonic music’, in Journal of New Music Research 31(4) (2002), 321-345. Page 11 of 125

×