Duplicate from aiacademy-kg/kws-dataset

Co-authored-by: Den Pavloff <Simonlob@users.noreply.huggingface.co>

.gitattributes

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+*.7z filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.arrow filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.avro filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.bin filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.bz2 filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.ckpt filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.ftz filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.gz filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.h5 filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.joblib filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.lfs.* filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.lz4 filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.mds filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.mlmodel filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.model filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.msgpack filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.npy filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.npz filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.onnx filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.ot filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.parquet filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.pb filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.pickle filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.pkl filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.pt filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.pth filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.rar filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.safetensors filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+saved_model/**/* filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.tar.* filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.tar filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.tflite filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.tgz filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.wasm filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.xz filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.zip filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.zst filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*tfevents* filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+# Audio files - uncompressed
+*.pcm filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.sam filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.raw filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+# Audio files - compressed
+*.aac filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.flac filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.mp3 filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.ogg filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.wav filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+# Image files - uncompressed
+*.bmp filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.gif filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.png filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.tiff filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+# Image files - compressed
+*.jpg filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.jpeg filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.webp filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+# Video files - compressed
+*.mp4 filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.webm filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text

README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,465 @@
+---
+license: apache-2.0
+language:
+- ky
+- ru
+task_categories:
+- tabular-classification
+- audio-classification
+tags:
+- keyword-spotting
+- wake-word
+- kyrgyz
+- speech
+- mfcc
+- spectral-features
+- educational
+- teaching
+size_categories:
+- 10K<n<100K
+pretty_name: "Akylai KWS Features — Educational Spectral-Feature Dataset"
+---
+
+# Akylai KWS Features — An Educational Spectral-Feature Dataset for Keyword Spotting
+
+A ready-to-model, **tabular** dataset for teaching binary classification on a *real* speech
+problem: detecting the Kyrgyz wake word **«Акылай»** (*Akylai*) versus everything else.
+Each row is one short audio clip already converted into a **fixed-length vector of 250
+spectral features**, so students can go straight to `scikit-learn` without touching a single
+audio library — yet the problem is a genuine, non-toy **Keyword Spotting (KWS)** task with a
+natural class imbalance, several distinct negative sub-populations, and instructive failure
+modes.
+
+> **One-line summary.** 40 000 clips → 250 acoustic features → binary label
+> (`1` = wake word, `0` = not). Mildly imbalanced (1 : 3). Built for an ML course that has
+> just covered linear models (Logistic Regression, SVM) and is about to meet trees.
+
+---
+
+## Table of contents
+
+1. [The task: what is Keyword Spotting?](#1-the-task-what-is-keyword-spotting)
+2. [A short history of wake words](#2-a-short-history-of-wake-words)
+3. [Where the audio comes from (provenance)](#3-where-the-audio-comes-from-provenance)
+4. [From a waveform to a feature vector](#4-from-a-waveform-to-a-feature-vector)
+5. [The features, in detail (with formulas)](#5-the-features-in-detail-with-formulas)
+6. [Temporal aggregation: variable-length audio → fixed vector](#6-temporal-aggregation-variable-length-audio--fixed-vector)
+7. [Dataset schema](#7-dataset-schema)
+8. [Modeling challenges (read this before you trust your accuracy)](#8-modeling-challenges)
+9. [License, provenance & citation](#9-license-provenance--citation)
+
+---
+
+## 1. The task: what is Keyword Spotting?
+
+**Keyword Spotting (KWS)** is the problem of detecting a small set of predefined words or
+short phrases in an audio stream. The most familiar special case is **wake-word detection**
+(also *hotword* or *trigger-word* detection): a tiny, always-listening model that waits for a
+single phrase — *"Hey Siri"*, *"OK Google"*, *"Alexa"* — and only then wakes up the heavy,
+cloud-based speech recogniser.
+
+Formally, given an audio segment $x(t)$ we want a decision function
+
+$$
+\hat{y} = \mathbb{1}\!\left[\, p(\text{keyword} \mid x) \ge \tau \,\right],
+$$
+
+where $\tau$ is an operating threshold. In this dataset the keyword is the Kyrgyz given name
+**«Акылай»** (three syllables, stress on the final *-ай*), and the task is reduced to its
+cleanest form: **binary classification of pre-segmented 2-second-scale clips** — keyword vs.
+non-keyword.
+
+KWS has several properties that make it a richer teaching example than tabular toy datasets:
+
+- **Strong class imbalance.** In deployment the keyword is vanishingly rare (a wake word may
+  fire a handful of times per day against hours of non-keyword audio). Here we use a gentle
+  **1 : 3** ratio — enough to make *accuracy misleading* without being degenerate.
+- **Asymmetric error costs.** A *false reject* (missing the keyword) annoys the user once; a
+  *false accept* (waking up on a TV advert) is far worse. This motivates the whole
+  precision/recall/threshold toolkit rather than a single accuracy number.
+- **A meaningful feature-engineering step.** Audio is not naturally tabular. Turning a
+  waveform into a fixed-length vector is itself a modelling decision — and a great lesson.
+
+---
+
+## 2. A short history of wake words
+
+- **1950s–60s — first isolated-word recognisers.** Bell Labs' *Audrey* (1952) recognised
+  spoken digits from a single speaker; IBM's *Shoebox* (1962) handled 16 words. These were
+  analog/template machines, but they established the core idea of matching short acoustic
+  patterns.
+- **1970s–80s — features and dynamic time warping.** The **cepstrum** and then **Mel-Frequency
+  Cepstral Coefficients (MFCCs)** (Davis & Mermelstein, 1980) became the standard front-end,
+  and **DTW** allowed matching words of different durations.
+- **1980s–2000s — statistical models.** **Hidden Markov Models (HMMs)** with Gaussian Mixture
+  emissions dominated speech. Classic KWS was often **keyword-filler HMMs**: one model for the
+  keyword, a "garbage" model for everything else.
+- **2014 — the deep-learning turning point for KWS.** Google's *"Small-footprint keyword
+  spotting using deep neural networks"* (Chen, Parada & Heigold, 2014) showed a compact DNN on
+  log-mel features beating the HMM pipeline — the recipe behind *"OK Google"* on-device.
+- **2014–2017 — the smart-speaker era.** *Amazon Echo / Alexa* (2014), *"Hey Siri"* on a
+  dedicated low-power core (2017), and *"OK Google"* turned always-on wake-word detection into
+  a mass-market component. Constraints became extreme: a few **tens of kilobytes** of
+  parameters, running continuously at milliwatts.
+- **2018–present — convolutional & streaming models.** Architectures such as
+  **TC-ResNet**, **BC-ResNet**, and depthwise-separable CNNs pushed accuracy up while keeping
+  the model tiny enough for an MCU/NPU.
+
+This dataset's parent project trains exactly such a tiny on-device model (a ~30 K-parameter
+BC-ResNet) for «Акылай». **The features you have here are the *classical* front-end** —
+MFCCs and spectral descriptors — which is both historically faithful and a perfect bridge
+from "linear models on tables" to "real speech".
+
+---
+
+## 3. Where the audio comes from (provenance)
+
+The clips come from **four different sources**, recorded in the `source` column. The single
+most important thing to understand about this dataset is the split between **synthetic
+(text-to-speech, TTS)** audio and **real human** audio.
+
+| `source` | `label` | n | Synthetic / real | What it is |
+|---|:---:|---:|---|---|
+| `positive` | **1** | 10 000 | **TTS** (in-house Kyrgyz TTS) | The wake word **«Акылай»**, spoken by a Kyrgyz text-to-speech model trained on podcast voices. |
+| `base_neg` | 0 | 7 680 | **TTS** (*same* engine as positives) | Other Kyrgyz words/phrases from the **same** TTS voice — *not* the wake word. |
+| `confusable` | 0 | 2 949 | **TTS** (KaniTTS, a *different* engine) | Phonetic near-neighbours — words ending in *-ай / -лай / -кай / -бай* (e.g. *Алтынай, калай, чай, лайк*) designed to look "almost" like the keyword. |
+| `podcast` | 0 | 19 371 | **Real human speech** | 2-second cuts of continuous Kyrgyz podcast speech — natural, spontaneous, with no wake word. |
+
+**Why this matters (and why we keep `source`).** The negatives are not homogeneous:
+
+- `podcast` is **real, out-of-domain** audio → in practice it is *easy* to separate from the
+  synthetic positives, partly for the wrong reason (the model can latch onto "synthetic vs.
+  real" timbre rather than the word itself — a classic **shortcut**).
+- `base_neg` shares the **exact same TTS voice** as the positives, so the *only* thing
+  distinguishing it from a positive is the **word** → this is the **honest, hard** part of the
+  problem.
+- `confusable` tests robustness to **phonetically similar words**.
+
+The `source` column is **not a feature** — never feed it to the model. It is provided for
+**error analysis**: *which kind of negative does your model actually fail on?* (Spoiler from
+our baseline experiments: almost all false positives come from `base_neg`.)
+
+> **Wake word.** «Акылай» — a Kyrgyz feminine given name, 3 syllables, stress on `-ай`.
+> All audio is 16 kHz mono.
+
+---
+
+## 4. From a waveform to a feature vector
+
+A raw clip is a sequence of $16\,000$ amplitude samples per second — far too high-dimensional
+and variable-length to feed to a classifier directly. The standard speech front-end turns it
+into a compact, fixed-length descriptor in three stages: **framing**, **time–frequency
+transform**, and **feature extraction + aggregation**.
+
+### 4.1 Framing
+
+The signal $x(n)$ is cut into overlapping short frames so that each frame is approximately
+**stationary** (the vocal tract changes slowly, ~10 ms scale). We use
+
+$$
+N_{\text{fft}} = 512 \;(\approx 32\,\text{ms window}), \qquad H = 160 \;(\approx 10\,\text{ms hop}),
+$$
+
+with a **Hann window** $w(n) = 0.5\left(1 - \cos\frac{2\pi n}{N-1}\right)$ to reduce spectral
+leakage.
+
+### 4.2 Short-Time Fourier Transform (STFT)
+
+For frame index $m$ and frequency bin $k$,
+
+$$
+X(m,k) \;=\; \sum_{n=0}^{N_{\text{fft}}-1} x(n + mH)\, w(n)\, e^{-\,j\,2\pi k n / N_{\text{fft}}}.
+$$
+
+From it we form the **magnitude** $|X(m,k)|$ and **power** spectrogram
+
+$$
+S(m,k) = |X(m,k)|^2 .
+$$
+
+The bin $k$ corresponds to physical frequency $f_k = \dfrac{k}{N_{\text{fft}}}\, f_s$, with
+$f_s = 16\,000$ Hz. Everything below is computed **per frame** $m$ and then aggregated over
+time (§6).
+
+---
+
+## 5. The features, in detail (with formulas)
+
+We extract **12 groups** of descriptors. They fall into three families:
+
+- **Cepstral** (MFCC + dynamics) — compact model of the spectral *envelope* (the vocal-tract
+  shape that defines phonemes).
+- **Spectral shape** (centroid, bandwidth, roll-off, flatness, contrast) — interpretable
+  scalar summaries of *where* and *how* spectral energy is distributed ("timbre").
+- **Energy / harmonicity / time-domain** (RMS, chroma, ZCR) — loudness, pitch-class content,
+  and a rough voicing/noisiness cue.
+
+### 5.1 Mel filterbank and log-mel energies
+
+Human pitch perception is roughly logarithmic, captured by the **mel scale**
+
+$$
+\text{mel}(f) = 2595 \,\log_{10}\!\left(1 + \frac{f}{700}\right).
+$$
+
+We place $M = 40$ overlapping **triangular filters** $H_j(k)$ equally spaced on the mel axis
+and integrate the power spectrum through them:
+
+$$
+E_{\text{mel}}(m,j) \;=\; \sum_{k} H_j(k)\, S(m,k), \qquad j = 1,\dots,40 .
+$$
+
+The dataset stores the **log (dB) mel energies** $\;10\log_{10} E_{\text{mel}}(m,j)\;$
+(columns `mel0…mel39`). *Interpretation:* a coarse, perceptually-warped picture of the spectral
+envelope — high values in low-mel bands mean energy concentrated at low pitch, etc.
+
+### 5.2 Mel-Frequency Cepstral Coefficients (MFCC)
+
+MFCCs decorrelate the log-mel vector with a **Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT-II)**:
+
+$$
+c(m,i) \;=\; \sum_{j=1}^{M} \log E_{\text{mel}}(m,j)\,
+\cos\!\left[\frac{\pi i}{M}\left(j - \tfrac{1}{2}\right)\right], \qquad i = 0,\dots,19 .
+$$
+
+We keep the first **20** coefficients (`mfcc0…mfcc19`). Low-order coefficients capture the
+**smooth spectral envelope** (formant structure → which phoneme is spoken); $c(m,0)$ is
+proportional to overall log-energy. MFCCs are the single most important speech feature
+historically and are nearly **uncorrelated**, which suits linear models well.
+
+### 5.3 Delta ($\Delta$) and delta-delta ($\Delta\Delta$) coefficients
+
+A single frame says nothing about *motion*. The **delta** features approximate the temporal
+derivative of each coefficient with a regression over $\pm\Theta$ frames:
+
+$$
+\Delta c(m,i) \;=\; \frac{\displaystyle\sum_{\theta=1}^{\Theta} \theta\,\bigl[c(m+\theta,i) - c(m-\theta,i)\bigr]}
+{\displaystyle 2\sum_{\theta=1}^{\Theta} \theta^{2}} .
+$$
+
+The **delta-delta** (acceleration) features are the deltas of the deltas. Columns
+`d1_0…d1_19` ($\Delta$) and `d2_0…d2_19` ($\Delta\Delta$). *Interpretation:* how fast the
+spectrum is changing — crucial for distinguishing a short, dynamic spoken word from
+quasi-stationary noise or music.
+
+### 5.4 Spectral centroid
+
+The "centre of mass" of the spectrum — a strong correlate of perceived **brightness**:
+
+$$
+\text{centroid}(m) \;=\; \frac{\sum_{k} f_k \,|X(m,k)|}{\sum_{k} |X(m,k)|}.
+$$
+
+### 5.5 Spectral bandwidth
+
+The spread of energy around the centroid (here the $p=2$, i.e. standard-deviation, form):
+
+$$
+\text{bandwidth}(m) \;=\;
+\left( \frac{\sum_{k} |X(m,k)|\,\bigl(f_k - \text{centroid}(m)\bigr)^{2}}
+{\sum_{k} |X(m,k)|} \right)^{1/2}.
+$$
+
+### 5.6 Spectral roll-off
+
+The frequency $f_R(m)$ below which a fraction $\rho = 0.85$ of the total spectral energy lies:
+
+$$
+f_R(m) = \min\Big\{ f_K \;:\; \sum_{k:\,f_k \le f_K} |X(m,k)| \;\ge\; \rho \sum_{k} |X(m,k)| \Big\}.
+$$
+
+Separates voiced/low-frequency-dominated frames from broadband/fricative ones.
+
+### 5.7 Spectral flatness
+
+The ratio of the **geometric** to the **arithmetic** mean of the power spectrum — a
+*tonality vs. noisiness* measure in $[0,1]$:
+
+$$
+\text{flatness}(m) \;=\;
+\frac{\exp\!\left(\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k}\ln S(m,k)\right)}{\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k} S(m,k)}.
+$$
+
+A value near $1$ ⇒ white-noise-like (flat); near $0$ ⇒ tonal/harmonic (peaky), as in voiced
+speech. Very useful for telling speech from noise/music.
+
+### 5.8 Spectral contrast
+
+For each of **7 sub-bands** $b$, the (log) difference between the strongest **peaks** and the
+weakest **valleys** in that band:
+
+$$
+\text{contrast}(m,b) \;=\; \overline{\text{Peak}}_b(m) \;-\; \overline{\text{Valley}}_b(m),
+$$
+
+where the peak/valley terms are the mean log-energies of the top/bottom quantile of bins in
+band $b$. High contrast ⇒ clear harmonic structure (formants stand out over the noise floor).
+Columns `contrast0…contrast6`. *In our baseline this was the single most informative group.*
+
+### 5.9 Chroma
+
+Projects the spectrum onto the **12 pitch classes** of the equal-tempered scale:
+
+$$
+\text{chroma}(m,p) \;=\; \sum_{k\,:\,\text{pitch-class}(f_k)=p} |X(m,k)|, \qquad p = 0,\dots,11 .
+$$
+
+Octave-invariant harmonic content. Borrowed from music IR; for speech it is a weak but
+non-trivial cue. Columns `chroma0…chroma11`.
+
+### 5.10 Zero-Crossing Rate (ZCR)
+
+A cheap time-domain measure of how often the waveform changes sign within a frame of length $L$:
+
+$$
+\text{ZCR}(m) \;=\; \frac{1}{2L}\sum_{n}\bigl|\operatorname{sgn} x(n) - \operatorname{sgn} x(n-1)\bigr|.
+$$
+
+High ZCR ⇒ noisy/fricative/unvoiced; low ZCR ⇒ voiced/low-frequency. A classic voicing proxy.
+
+### 5.11 Root-Mean-Square energy (RMS)
+
+Per-frame loudness:
+
+$$
+\text{RMS}(m) \;=\; \sqrt{\frac{1}{L}\sum_{n} x(n)^{2}} .
+$$
+
+Tracks the speech envelope (syllable onsets/offsets, silences).
+
+---
+
+## 6. Temporal aggregation: variable-length audio → fixed vector
+
+The features above produce **one value per frame**, so a clip is a *matrix* $\phi(m)$ of shape
+(features × frames), and clips have **different numbers of frames** (different durations).
+Classical models need a **fixed-length** vector. We therefore summarise each per-frame feature
+$\phi$ over its $T$ frames by its **mean** and **standard deviation**:
+
+$$
+\mu_\phi = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{m=1}^{T} \phi(m), \qquad
+\sigma_\phi = \sqrt{\frac{1}{T}\sum_{m=1}^{T}\bigl(\phi(m) - \mu_\phi\bigr)^{2}} .
+$$
+
+Hence every group contributes **two** columns per channel (`…_mean`, `…_std`), and *every clip
+maps to the same 250-dimensional vector* regardless of length. The `std` summaries turn out to
+be very informative — they encode *how much the spectrum moves over time*, which separates a
+short spoken word from stationary background. (In our baseline, several `…_std` features rank
+at the very top of tree-based feature importances.)
+
+> **Design choice / leakage note.** Clip **duration is deliberately *not* a feature.** In the
+> raw corpus all `podcast` negatives are exactly 2.000 s while positives are shorter, so
+> duration alone would let a model "cheat". Aggregating to mean/std makes the descriptor
+> length-invariant and removes that shortcut. (The deeper *synthetic-vs-real* shortcut remains
+> — see §8.)
+
+### Feature budget (250 total)
+
+| Group | Per-frame channels | × {mean, std} | Columns |
+|---|---:|---:|---:|
+| MFCC | 20 | 2 | 40 |
+| $\Delta$ MFCC | 20 | 2 | 40 |
+| $\Delta\Delta$ MFCC | 20 | 2 | 40 |
+| log-mel energies | 40 | 2 | 80 |
+| spectral contrast | 7 | 2 | 14 |
+| chroma | 12 | 2 | 24 |
+| centroid | 1 | 2 | 2 |
+| bandwidth | 1 | 2 | 2 |
+| roll-off | 1 | 2 | 2 |
+| flatness | 1 | 2 | 2 |
+| ZCR | 1 | 2 | 2 |
+| RMS | 1 | 2 | 2 |
+| **Total** | | | **250** |
+
+---
+
+## 7. Dataset schema
+
+One parquet file, **40 000 rows × 252 columns**, all features `float32`, no missing values.
+
+| Column(s) | Type | Role | Notes |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| `mfcc{0..19}_{mean,std}` | float32 | feature | cepstral envelope |
+| `d1_{0..19}_{mean,std}` | float32 | feature | $\Delta$ MFCC |
+| `d2_{0..19}_{mean,std}` | float32 | feature | $\Delta\Delta$ MFCC |
+| `mel{0..39}_{mean,std}` | float32 | feature | log-mel energies (dB) |
+| `contrast{0..6}_{mean,std}` | float32 | feature | spectral contrast |
+| `chroma{0..11}_{mean,std}` | float32 | feature | pitch-class energy |
+| `centroid_{mean,std}` | float32 | feature | brightness |
+| `bandwidth_{mean,std}` | float32 | feature | spectral spread |
+| `rolloff_{mean,std}` | float32 | feature | 85 % roll-off freq. |
+| `flatness_{mean,std}` | float32 | feature | tonality |
+| `zcr_{mean,std}` | float32 | feature | zero-crossing rate |
+| `rms_{mean,std}` | float32 | feature | loudness |
+| **`label`** | int | **target** | `1` = «Акылай», `0` = negative |
+| **`source`** | string | **metadata** | `positive` / `base_neg` / `confusable` / `podcast` — **do not train on this** |
+
+**Class balance:** 10 000 positive / 30 000 negative (**25 % positive, 1 : 3**).
+
+---
+
+## 8. Modeling challenges
+
+This is where the dataset earns its keep as a teaching tool. Things students *should* run into:
+
+1. **Class imbalance → accuracy lies.** A constant "always negative" classifier already scores
+   **75 % accuracy** but is useless (F1 = 0, PR-AUC = 0.25). Insist on **precision, recall,
+   F1, ROC-AUC, and especially PR-AUC**, plus the confusion matrix. Tools to discuss:
+   `class_weight="balanced"`, threshold tuning, resampling.
+
+2. **The synthetic-vs-real shortcut (the big one).** Positives are TTS; `podcast` negatives are
+   real human speech. A model can score deceptively well by learning *"synthetic timbre vs.
+   real"* instead of *"the word Akylai vs. other words"*. The antidote is **per-`source` error
+   analysis**: evaluate false-positive rate **separately** on `podcast`, `base_neg`, and
+   `confusable`. The honest difficulty lives in `base_neg` (same TTS voice, different word).
+
+3. **Operating point & asymmetric costs.** F1 is not the deployment metric; real KWS cares
+   about *recall at a fixed false-alarm rate*. Sweep the threshold $\tau$ and read off the
+   precision/recall trade-off — a natural lead-in to ROC and PR curves.
+
+4. **Feature scaling matters — but only for some models.** Distance/margin-based learners
+   (Logistic Regression, SVM, k-NN) need `StandardScaler`; tree ensembles
+   (Random Forest, Gradient Boosting) are scale-invariant. A clean side-by-side lesson.
+
+5. **High dimensionality & redundancy.** 250 features, many correlated (MFCC vs. mel; mean vs.
+   std). Good ground for regularisation ($L_1/L_2$), feature importance, and dimensionality
+   reduction. Note that in a 2-D **PCA** projection the classes **overlap heavily** — a useful
+   reminder that "I can't see a boundary in 2-D" does *not* mean the classes are inseparable in
+   250-D.
+
+6. **Speaker / generator leakage.** Positives come from a limited set of synthetic voices; a
+   purely random train/test split can leak speaker identity and **inflate** scores. A stricter
+   evaluation would split by speaker or by source. Worth at least *discussing*.
+
+7. **It's "easy enough" to be encouraging, hard enough to be real.** Even a linear model
+   reaches high PR-AUC on these features, so beginners get a rewarding result quickly — while
+   the per-source breakdown leaves a genuine, interpretable hard core to dig into.
+
+---
+
+
+## 9. License, provenance & citation
+
+- **License:** Apache-2.0.
+- **Languages:** Kyrgyz (`ky`), with some Russian (`ru`) confusables.
+- **Audio provenance:** positives and `base_neg` are generated by an in-house Kyrgyz
+  text-to-speech model (trained on podcast voices); `confusable` clips are generated by
+  **KaniTTS**; `podcast` negatives are 2-second cuts of real Kyrgyz-language podcast speech.
+  Features were extracted with `librosa` (16 kHz, $N_{\text{fft}}=512$, hop $=160$).
+- **Parent project:** the «Акылай» on-device wake-word detector
+  (`KaniTTS-research-team/AkylAi_Wake_Word_V4`). This features table is a derived, tabular
+  **teaching** snapshot — it does **not** contain audio.
+
+```bibtex
+@misc{akylai_kws_features,
+  title  = {Akylai KWS Features: An Educational Spectral-Feature Dataset for Keyword Spotting},
+  author = {AkylAi Wake Word project},
+  year   = {2026},
+  note   = {Derived tabular features (MFCC + spectral descriptors) over the Akylai wake-word corpus},
+  license = {Apache-2.0}
+}
+```
+
+> **Educational use.** This dataset is intended for teaching classification and audio feature
+> engineering. The synthetic positives and the domain split between TTS and real speech make it
+> unsuitable as-is for benchmarking a production wake-word detector.

data/train-00000-of-00001.parquet

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:370cfe0f24937bbd2ecc5b329ac7752938415406676d5811aec90232075c846f
+size 59393466