<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Overview of MusiCLEF 2011</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Nicola Orio</string-name>
          <email>orio@dei.unipd.it</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>David Rizo</string-name>
          <email>drizo@dlsi.ua.es</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Department of Information Engineering University of Padova</institution>
          ,
          <country country="IT">Italy</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>Department of Software and Computing Systems University of Alicante</institution>
          ,
          <country country="ES">Spain</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>MusiCLEF is a novel benchmarking activity that aims at promoting the development of new methodologies for music access and retrieval on real public music collections. A major focus is given to multimodal retrieval that, in the case of music collections, can be obtained by combining content-based information, automatically extracted from music les, with contextual information, provided by users via tags, comments, or reviews. Moreover, MusiCLEF aims at maintaining a tight connection with real application scenarios, focusing on issues on music access and retrieval that are faced by professional users. To this end, the benchmark activity of the rst year of MusiCLEF focused on two main tasks: automatic categorization of music to be used as soundtrack of TV shows and automatic identi cation of the digitized material of a music digital library.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>The increasing availability of digital music accessible by end users is boosting
the development of Music Information Retrieval (MIR), a research area devoted
to the study of methodologies for content- and context-based music access. As
it appears from the scienti c production of the last decade, research on MIR
encompasses a wide variety of di erent subjects that go beyond pure retrieval:
the de nition of novel content descriptors and multidimensional similarity
measures to generate playlists; the extraction of high level descriptors { e.g. melody,
harmony, rhythm, structure { from audio; the automatic identi cation of artist
and genre. As it is well known, the possibility to evaluate the di erent research
results using a shared dataset has always played a central role in the
development of information retrieval methodologies, as it is witnessed by the success of
initiatives such as TREC and CLEF, which focus on textual documents.</p>
      <p>
        The same need has been perceived in MIR, motivating the development of
an important evaluation campaign, the Music Information Retrieval
Evaluation eXchange (MIREX). MIREX campaigns3 are organized since 2005 [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ] by
the International Music Information Retrieval Systems Evaluation Laboratory
3 http://www.music-ir.org/mirex
(IMIRSEL) at the Graduate School of Library and Information Science,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Due to the many limitations posed by the
music industry, the organizers of the MIREX chose to distribute only publicly
available test collections. Participants are in charge to create their own
collection and after local experimentation submit their software that is run by the
organizers. This approach has two drawbacks, which have already been debated
by the MIR research community: the results of previous campaigns cannot be
easily replicated and the results depend on the individual training sets and not
only on the submitted algorithms.
      </p>
      <p>
        A recent relevant initiative, that aims at overcoming the limitations imposed
by not sharing the datasets between researchers, is the Million Songs Dataset
(MSD). Thanks to MSD4, researchers can access a number of features from a very
large collection of songs [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]. Unfortunately, the algorithms used to extract these
features are not public, limiting the possibility to carry out research on content
description techniques. Another ongoing initiative related to the evaluation of
MIR approaches is the Networked Environment for Music Analysis (NEMA),
that aims at providing a web-based architecture for the integration of music data
and analytic/evaluative tools5. NEMA builds upon the achievements of MIREX
campaigns regarding the evaluation of MIR approaches, with the additional goal
of providing tools for resource discovery and sharing.
      </p>
      <p>Within this scenario, MusiCLEF is an additional benchmarking initiative,
that has been proposed in 2011 as part of the activities of the Cross-Language
Evaluation Forum (CLEF). CLEF focuses on multilingual and multimodal
retrieval6 and gathers researchers in di erent aspect of information retrieval,
ranging from plagiarism and intellectual property rights to image retrieval.</p>
      <p>The goal of MusiCLEF is to promote the development of novel methodologies
for music access and retrieval, which can combine content-based information,
automatically extracted from music les, with contextual information, provided
by users through tags, comments, or reviews. The combination of these two
sources of information is still under-investigated in MIR, although it is well
known that content-based information alone is not able to capture all the relevant
features of a given music piece (for instance, its usage as a soundtrack or the
year of release), while contextual information su ers from the typical limitations
for new items and new users (also known as cold start).</p>
      <p>Aiming at investigating and promoting research on the combination of
textual and music information, MusiCLEF has a strong focus on multimodality
that, together with multilingualism, is the main objective of the CLEF
evaluation forum. Moreover, the tasks proposed for MusiCLEF 2011 are motivated
by real scenarios, discussed with private and public bodies involved in music
access and dissemination. In particular, MIR techniques can be exploited for
helping music professionals to describe music collections and for managing a
music digital library of digitized analogue recordings. To this end, the organizers
4 http://labrosa.ee.columbia.edu/millionsong/
5 http://www.music-ir.org/?q=nema/overview
6 http://clef-campaign.org/
last.fm data</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Low level</title>
      <p>features</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Campaign</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Participant</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>Results</title>
      <sec id="sec-5-1">
        <title>MusicCLEF</title>
        <sec id="sec-5-1-1">
          <title>2. produce</title>
          <p>public web site</p>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-5-1-2">
          <title>7. publish</title>
        </sec>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-5-2">
        <title>MusicCLEF</title>
        <p>if(conn
SELEC
WHERE
print
3
.
d
o
w
n
l
o
a
d</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-5-3">
        <title>Participant</title>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>Results evaluation</title>
      <p>of MusiCLEF exploited the ongoing collaborations with both a company for
music broadcasting services (LaCosa s.r.l.) and a public music library (University
of Alicante's Fonoteca).</p>
      <p>Two tasks are proposed within MusiCLEF 2011, and both are based on a
test collection of thousands of songs in MP3 format. To completely overcome
copyright issues, only low-level descriptors will be distributed to participants.
Figure 1 depicts the tasks work ow of MusiCLEF, which is described in more
detail in the following sections.</p>
      <p>not public
if(conn
WSHEELREEC 1.read
print
features
extractor</p>
      <p>MP3</p>
      <p>Library
1
.
h
t
t
p
r
e
q
u webservice
last.fm est
tags</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>Low level features</title>
      <p>if(conn
SELEC
WHERE
print
last.fm data
4. read</p>
      <sec id="sec-7-1">
        <title>4. read</title>
        <p>&lt;script
var a=
var xl
if(xls</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-8">
      <title>Participant algorithms</title>
      <sec id="sec-8-1">
        <title>5. produce</title>
        <p>results
A major goal of MusiCLEF is to maintain a tight connection with real application
scenarios, in order to promote the development of techniques that can be applied
to solve issues in music accessing and retrieval that are faced by professional
users. The choice of focusing on professional users is motivated by the fact that
they need to address a number of real-life issues that are usually not taken into
account by music accessing systems aimed at the general public. At the same
time, the evaluation of the e ectiveness of the proposed automatic solution is
easier to assess, because professional users have a clear idea of what are their
information needs.
2.1</p>
        <p>LaCosa s.r.l.</p>
        <p>LaCosa was founded as a service provider of the major TV broadcasting {
public and private { companies in Italy with the goal of managing and describing
a large music collection of songs to be used for TV programs, including jingles,
background and incidental music, and music themes for TV shows. LaCosa has
a strong cooperation with RTI, a company that, apart from buying and storing
songs issued by the major record companies, produces its own music catalogue.
At present, RTI library contains about 320,000 songs of pop-rock, jazz, and
classical music. Besides playing the role of music consultant, being one of the biggest
private music repositories in Italy, RTI o ers a number of services to external
companies of music consultants, who can browse remotely the repository.
Audio features distributed to the participants are thus extracted remotely, without
downloading the audio les.</p>
        <p>The typical job of a music consultant is to select a list of songs that are
suitable for a particular application, for instance a TV commercial, the \promo" of
a new program, the background music for a documentary, and so on. The
availability of large online collections, such as Last.fm and YouTube, is representing
an alternative to the services of a music consultant. For instance, journalists are
increasingly selecting by themselves the music for their news stories, instead of
asking to music consultants. The goal of LaCosa is then to provide high quality
descriptions, that are tailored to the particular application domain, in order to
represent still a more interesting alternative to free recommendations.</p>
        <p>Given these considerations, the requirements of LaCosa can be summarized
as follows: How to improve the acquisition process, extracting the maximum
amount of information about music recordings from external resources? How to
provide good suggestion about possible usages of music material, minimizing the
amount of manual work?</p>
        <p>Because of the interest on the development of automatic systems for
addressing these two requirements, LaCosa decided to provide at its own expenses
a number of assessors to create the ground truth for evaluation. The involvement
of professional users included also the de nition of a vocabulary of 167 terms
describing music genre (terms are organized in two levels, genre and subgenre),
and of 188 terms describing the music mood. It is important to note that, in
this case, the concept of mood is related to the usage of a particular song within
a video production. As explained in more detail in Section 3.1, only a subset of
the mood terms have been used in the evaluation campaign.
2.2</p>
        <p>Fonoteca de la Universidad de Alicante
Some years ago, the local radio broadcast station Radio Alicante Cadena Ser
transferred its collection of vinyls to the Library of the University of Alicante.
This collection contains approximately 40,000 vinyls of an important cultural
value, containing a wide range of genres. The library decided to digitize the
vinyls, sound and covers, to overcome the preservation problems when allowing
library users to access the discs and to enable its reproduction embedded in the
library's Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC) with the name Fonoteca7.</p>
        <p>The process was carried out following library cataloguing techniques to make
the inventory of the collection. Vinyls were catalogued using Universal
Decimal Classi cation, and classi ed into subjects based on the Library of Congress
subject headings. Digitized covers and audio were linked to the corresponding
records. The cataloguing data consists of the album's title, the name of the
discographic company, the release year, its physic description, several entries for
genres classi ed manually by the cataloguers, and nally notes about the
content. Regarding the sound content, each vinyl was digitized in two les, one for
each side. For 45 rpm discs each side usually contains only one song, while for 33
rpm LPs, which are more common in the collection, each side contains several
tracks.</p>
        <p>Having catalogued and digitized the material, some drawbacks emerge that
strongly limit the browsing capabilities in the OPAC. The separation of tracks
from a continuous stream could be easily solved in most cases just by nding
silences between tracks. However, this may not be the case for live recordings
or classical music tracks, where the music itself contains long rests. A related
problem is the correct entitling of the tracks. Although some catalogued albums
contain details of the contained tracks, there are many others, mainly operas,
where the track names are not present. Another common situation is that of
nding two di erent recordings of the same work whose tracks have been
labeled using two di erent languages or naming schemes, e.g., \Symphony No.
9" knowns as \Novena Sinfon a" as well as \Choral Symphony". Audio
ngerprinting techniques can hardly be applied to solve this task because of disc age,
besides the fact that some of the discs may not have been reissued on CD and
thus may not have been included in any audio ngerprint dataset.</p>
        <p>Besides these drawbacks, the sta of the library demands some features that
cannot be implemented given the current structure of the data. For example,
given an album, nd it in music sites like Last.fm or Grooveshark. Similarly, nd
a given song/track and its di erent recordings in those music sites and inside the
library regardless of language or naming schemes. In order to locate music, they
want the users to be able to query the library given metadata not contained in
the catalog, like the lyrics of the songs.
7 http://www.ua.es/en/bibliotecas/SIBID/fonoteca</p>
        <p>The Benchmark Activities
Each of the two professional partners motivated a particular task that has been
organized within MusiCLEF 2011. The tasks can be summarized as follows:
{ Automatic categorization of pop and rock music, for its use in TV broadcasts,
made in cooperation with LaCosa.
{ Automatic identi cation of classical music, for the creation of computer
assisted bibliographic records, made in cooperation with the Fonoteca.</p>
        <p>Both tasks that are typical of the MIR research area. On the one hand,
the categorization of music documents is related to automatic tagging (or
autotagging). Tags are short free-text descriptions of multimedia items, which are
shared through web-based systems. These descriptions are usually provided by
end-users and have been often exploited for automatic recommendation systems.
One the other hand, the identi cation of unknown recordings is related to cover
identi cation. A cover is usually an alternative version of a previously released
song, and the term is particularly used in pop and rock genres. The automatic
identi cation of alternative versions of a given song can be used for
intellectual property management or simply to provide the end-user with additional
information about the music he is accessing to.
3.1</p>
        <p>Automatic Categorization
The goal of the rst task is to exploit both automatically extracted information
about the content and user generated information about the context to carry out
categorization. The application scenario that motivates this task is the following:
Songs of a \commercial music library" need to be categorized
according to their possible usage in TV and radio broadcasts, for instance as
commercials, soundtracks and jingles.</p>
        <p>For professional applications it is common practice to use di erent sources of
information to assess the relevance of a given song to a particular usage. At rst
candidate songs are selected depending on the result of Web searches and on the
analysis of user-generated tags. Since these sources of information are usually
very noisy, experts make the nal choice depending on the actual music content.</p>
        <p>The dataset made available to participants of MusiCLEF 2011 is composed
of 1355 di erent songs, played by 218 di erent artists; each song has a duration
between 2 and 6 minutes. In order to simulate this scenario, participants of
MusiCLEF were provided with three di erent sources of information for each of
the songs in the dataset:
{ Content descriptors, extracted directly from audio;
{ User tags, downloaded from the Web-service of an Internet radio;
{ Web pages, related to the artist that performed the song.</p>
        <p>Since CLEF campaigns aim at promoting multilingualism, tags could be in
any language (although most of the music terms for pop and rock genres are in
English) while Web pages have been downloaded using queries in ve di erent
languages (English, Italian, German, French, and Swedish).</p>
        <p>As regards the ground truth to evaluate the di erent systems, we exploited
the collaboration with LaCosa (see Section 2.1). Each song was manually
categorized by music professionals, using at least one term for genre and ve terms
for mood. The vocabulary of tags de ned by the experts was initially composed
of 355 tags divided in two categories { genre (167) and mood (288) { loosely
inspired by the Music Genome Project8. At the end, we discarded all the tags that
were assigned to less than twenty songs; this led to the nal released vocabulary
of 94 tags.</p>
        <p>Songs were grouped in two sets: a training set of 975 song, available to
participants, and test set of the remaining 380 songs, for the nal evaluation.
3.2</p>
        <p>Identi cation of Classical Music
The second task gives an higher importance to content descriptors, which are
used to automatically provide contextual information. The real-life scenario that
has been considered for this task is the following:</p>
        <p>A \music digital library" contains a set of loosely labeled digital
acquisitions of old analogue recordings of classical music; recordings should be
automatically annotated with metadata, such as composer, title,
movement, excerpt.</p>
        <p>It has to be noted that systems for automatic music identi cation already
give good results, at least in terms of e ectiveness (e ciency being still an issue).
Yet the combination of segmentation and identi cation of continuous recordings
is not well investigated yet.</p>
        <p>To this end participants were provided by a dataset divided in two parts:
6680 music les containing single music pieces (e.g., a Sonata in four movements
is contained in four di erent les) and 22 music les each one containing a side
of LP. Hence this task was split in two subtasks: to identify the pieces that are
alternative recordings of the same work (for single les) and to match the content
of the LP recordings with the corresponding songs (for digital acquisitions).</p>
        <p>Also for this task, participants of MusiCLEF were provided with di erent
sources of information for each of the songs in the dataset
{ Content descriptors, extracted directly from audio;
{ Metadata regarding title, movement and composer for the single les;
{ Information reported in the LP covers for the digital acquisitions.</p>
        <p>It is interesting to note that metadata descriptors are mostly in Italian, while
the information on the LP covers is mostly in Spanish.
8 http://www.pandora.com</p>
        <p>The ground truth was already available for the single recordings, because
all the les have been catalogued by music experts, while the correspondence
of the cover information for the LPs and the actual content has been manually
inspected by the organizers.</p>
        <p>The training set contained: 661 individual les organized in groups,
considering that two songs were in the same group if they were alternative recordings of
the same music work and 3 les with LP acquisitions. The test set used to
evaluate the di erent systems contained 600 additional single les and the remaining
19 digital acquisitions.
4</p>
        <p>Conclusions
MusiCLEF is a new benchmarking activity that aims at fostering content- and
context-based analysis techniques to improve music information retrieval tasks,
with a special focus on multimodal approaches. We reported on the motivation
and on the organization of tasks. At the time of writing evaluation is still ongoing,
thus results will be available directly at the CLEF conference.
5</p>
        <p>Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for the support of the sta of LaCosa s.r.l. and the
University of Alicante's Fonoteca. MusiCLEF has been partially supported by
Network of Excellence co-funded by the 7th Framework Programme of the
European Commission, grant agreement no. 258191. CLEF is an activity of
PROMISE. This research is also supported by the Spanish Ministry projects
DRIMS (TIN2009-14247-C02-02) and Consolider Ingenio MIPRCV
(CSD200700018), both partially supported by EU ERDF.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Downie</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>West</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ehmann</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Vincent</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>The 2005 Music Information retrieval Evaluation Exchange (MIREX</article-title>
          <year>2005</year>
          )
          <article-title>: Preliminary Overview</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proc. of ISMIR</source>
          . (
          <year>2005</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bertin-Mahieux</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ellis</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Whitman</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lamere</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>The million song dataset</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proc. of ISMIR</source>
          . (
          <year>2011</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>