## 3 Results  
Tables 2 and 3 show the performances of each algorithm in terms of time elapsed (TE) and relative absolute error (RAE). Tables 4-6 detail the accuracy with acceptance rates of 1 \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**ACC-10**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Dataset Category**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Algorithm**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **YIN** & **SWIPE** & **NLS** & **OBP** \\ \hline
2 harm & 1.000000 & 1.000000 & 1.000000 & 1.000000 \\
2 harm\_wgn15 & 1.000000 & 1.000000 & 1.000000 & 1.000000 \\
4 harm & 1.000000 & 1.000000 & 1.000000 & 0.979798 \\
4 harm\_4 part\_wgn15 & 0.414141 & 0.484848 & 1.000000 & 0.757576 \\
4 harm\_high & 0.989899 & 1.000000 & 0.939394 & 0.588589 \\
4 harm\_wgn15 & 1.000000 & 1.000000 & 1.000000 & 1.000000 \\ full1 & 0.434343 & 0.383838 & 0.595960 & 0.696970 \\ full2 & 0.575758 & 0.444444 & 0.646465 & 0.828283 \\ pure & 1.000000 & 1.000000 & 1.000000 & 1.000000 \\ pure\_wgn0P3 & 0.989899 & 0.089899 & 1.000000 & 1.000000 \\ square\_pure & 0.727273 & 0.979798 & 1.000000 & 1.000000 \\ square\_wgn10 & 0.606061 & 0.858586 & 1.000000 & 0.424242 \\ \hline MEAN & 0.811448 & 0.855219 & 0.931818 & 0.904040 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: ACC-10: percentage of the times each algorithm has provided an estimated frequency that brings RAE < 0.10. Averaged over each category of the SYNTHPITCH dataset, along with the mean for each algorithm over the whole dataset. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**ACC-1**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Dataset Category**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Algorithm**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **YIN** & **SWIPE** & **NLS** & **OBP** \\ \hline
2 harm & 0.949495 & 0.989899 & 1.000000 & 0.474747 \\
2 harm\_wgn15 & 0.969697 & 0.979798 & 1.000000 & 0.39939 \\
4 harm & 0.989899 & 0.989899 & 1.000000 & 0.434343 \\
4 harm\_4 part\_wgn15 & 0.414141 & 0.242424 & 1.000000 & 0.303030 \\
4 harm\_high & 0.989899 & 0.989899 & 0.939394 & 0.303030 \\
4 harm\_wgn15 & 1.000000 & 0.989899 & 1.000000 & 0.424242 \\ full1 & 0.434343 & 0.191919 & 0.595960 & 0.414141 \\ full2 & 0.575758 & 0.262626 & 0.646465 & 0.474747 \\ pure & 0.777778 & 0.868687 & 1.000000 & 0.444444 \\ pure\_wgn0P3 & 0.979798 & 0.606061 & 1.000000 & 0.484848 \\ square\_pure & 0.626263 & 0.939394 & 1.000000 & 0.444444 \\ square\_wgn10 & 0.606061 & 0.858586 & 1.000000 & 0.424242 \\ \hline MEAN & 0.776094 & 0.742424 & 0.931818 & 0.418350 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: ACC-1: percentage of the times each algorithm has provided an estimated frequency that brings RAE < 0.01. Averaged over each category of the SYNTHPITCH dataset, along with the mean for each algorithm over the whole dataset. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**ACC-2**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Dataset Category**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Algorithm**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **YIN** & **SWIPE** & **NLS** & **OBP** \\ \hline
2 harm & 1.000000 & 1.000000 & 1.000000 & 1.000000 \\
2 harm\_wgn15 & 1.000000 & 1.000000 & 1.000000 & 0.757576 \\
4 harm\_high & 0.989899 & 0.989899 & 0.939394 & 0.588589 \\
4 harm\_wgn15 & 1.000000 & 1.000000 & 1.000000 & 1.00000 \\ full1 & 0.434343 & 0.383838 & 0.595960 & 0.696970 \\ full2 & 0.575758 & 0.444444 & 0.646465 & 0.828283 \\ pure & 1.000000 & 1.000000 & 1.000000 & 1.000000 \\ pure\_wgn0P3 & 0.989899 & 0.989899 & 1.000000 & 1.000000 \\ square\_pure & 0.727273 & 0.979798 & 1.000000 & 1.000000 \\ square\_wgn10 & 0.606061 & 0.979798 & 1.000000 & 1.000000 \\ \hline MEAN & 0.811448 & 0.855219 & 0.931818 & 0.904040 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: ACC-2: percentage of the times each algorithm has provided an estimated frequency that brings RAE < 0.02. Averaged over each category of the SYNTHPITCH dataset, along with the mean for each algorithm over the whole dataset.