## 4 Performance Evaluation
### Localization Results in a Single Apartment Building  
The first eight rows of Table 4 present F1 scores of the localization results via five-fold cross-validation, \(\mathcal{T}_{\text{P,APT 1}}\) and \(\mathcal{T}_{\text{P,APT 2}}\), with \(t\) variation. The underlined values represent F1 scores of the floor classification via rearrangement of the localization results to their corresponding floors. Because 95.7% of the actual inter-floor noise complaints were identified as noise from floors above/below [4], these floor classifications are considered to be the main  
Figure 5: Time–frequency representations of inter-floor noise signals. (**a**,**d**) show HD and HH at the campus building. (**b**,**e**) show HD and HH in APT I. (**c**,**f**) show HD and HH in APT II. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Task**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**CNN**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**_t (s)_**} \\ \cline{3-8}  & & **0.152** & **0.501** & **1.00** & **1.50** & **2.00** & **3.00** \\ \hline \(\mathcal{T}_{\text{\bf{LAPT 1}}}\) & VGG16 & 0.9346 & 0.9663 & 0.9663 & 0.9719 & **0.9731** & 0.9662 \\  & & (0.9377) & (0.9708) & (0.9742) & (0.9764) & **(0.9798)** & (0.9730) \\  & SoundNet & 0.3016 & 0.4102 & 0.9497 & 0.9555 & 0.9545 & 0.9172 \\  & & (0.4162) & (0.4913) & (0.9553) & (0.9634) & (0.9601) & (0.9240) \\ \(\mathcal{T}_{\text{\bf{LAPT T 1}|APT 1}}\) & VGG16 & 0.6801 & 0.8235 & 0.8019 & 0.7873 & **0.8303** & 0.4616 \\  & & (0.9606) & (**0.9645**) & (0.9552) & (0.9220) & (0.9563) & (0.5128) \\  & SoundNet & 0.2286 & 0.3339 & 0.6862 & 0.7494 & 0.7324 & 0.6976 \\  & & (0.3536) & (0.4094) & (0.8229) & (0.8132) & (0.8559) & (0.7688) \\ \(\mathcal{T}_{\text{\bf{LAPT 2}}}\) & VGG16 & 0.9513 & **0.9582** & 0.9536 & 0.9541 & 0.9551 & 0.9456 \\  & & (0.9917) & (0.9938) & (0.9948) & (0.9938) & (0.9953) & (0.9922) \\  & SoundNet & 0.3491 & 0.3789 & 0.9487 & 0.9507 & 0.9501 & 0.9378 \\  & & (0.5523) & (0.5266) & (0.9886) & (0.9876) & (0.9876) & (0.9844) \\ \(\mathcal{T}_{\text{\bf{LAPT T 2}|APT 2}}\) & VGG16 & 0.7038 & 0.7262 & 0.8553 & 0.7910 & 0.7991 & **0.9102** \\  & & (0.9664) & (0.9898) & (0.9896) & (**0.9907**) & (0.9875) & (0.9900) \\  & SoundNet & 0.2965 & 0.3204 & 0.8079 & 0.8616 & 0.8064 & 0.7324 \\  & & (0.4530) & (0.4686) & (0.9106) & (0.9164) & (0.9145) & (0.9249) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: F1 scores of source type classification tasks with \(t\) variation. The values in the parentheses are F1 scores when HH and HD are assumed to be the same category. interest in real application. Figure 6b,c present trend of the localization results and those of the floor classification tasks with \(t\) variation, respectively. The remaining eight rows present F1 scores of test results via \(\mathcal{T}_{\text{p,APT\;1}^{\prime}|\text{APT\;1}}\) and \(\mathcal{T}_{\text{p,APT\;2}^{\prime}|\text{APT\;2}}\). \(\mathcal{T}_{\text{p,APT\;1}^{\prime}|\text{APT\;1}}\) tests \(f_{\Theta^{i}_{\text{p,APT\;1}}}(\cdot)\) on \(\{\mathbf{P}_{i_{k}},y_{i}\}\), \(y_{i}\in\mathcal{Y}_{\text{p,APT\;1}^{\prime}}\). However, there exists a label-space difference between \(f_{\Theta^{i}_{\text{p,APT\;1}}}(\cdot)\) (i.e., \(\mathcal{Y}_{\text{p,APT\;1}}\)) and \(\mathcal{Y}_{\text{p,APT\;1}^{\prime}}\). Accordingly, 1-C-a, 1-D-a, and 1-E-a cannot be considered any of the categories learned by \(f_{\Theta^{i}_{\text{p,APT\;1}}}(\cdot)\) because their XY positions relative to the receiver are different from those learned by \(f_{\Theta^{i}_{\text{p,APT\;1}}}(\cdot)\). Therefore, the localization test results are evaluated separately, as follows. 1. The position labels 1-A\({}^{\prime}\)-a and 1-B\({}^{\prime}\)-a are considered 1-A-a and 1-B-a, respectively. These realize the localization of inter-floor noise transmitted through the unlearned floor section (4 F \(\rightarrow\) 3 F in APT I). 2.