Monday, 4 February 2008

Re: Bach fugue project. Chew and Wu: Contig Mapping paper

Very similar work to what I want to do. Their key assumption is that voices don't cross over each other. They use this to allocate voices at points where all voices are sounding.

I disagree with their key assumption! But are they right? Seems a dangerous assumption on which to found their entire work on...

Surely a major problem can occur if you base your whole program on a key assumption from your own domain knowledge, which then turns out to be incorrect some of the time? Better to base the program on objective facts and observations?

But this approach is quite useful in that they cut down the amount of fugue they are looking at, significantly, by using marker points in time at which they are sure that they have successfully allocated notes to voices. Is there some key assumption that I can make that I can use in a similar way? For example if all voices are present, and the notes are very far apart (how would I quantify this) and in the correct range for each voice (ditto)

Their algorithm seems very efficient - O(n^2)

They make several mention of rules - to what extent is their approach rule based?

One major thing I learnt from this paper: if using unfamiliar jargon in a paper, define it early! They don't define 'contig' till p7/20!

No comments:

Post a Comment