| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Free |
| Capabilities | 10 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Analyzes ambient audio streams captured via device microphone to identify snoring acoustic signatures using machine learning models trained on snoring phoneme patterns. The system processes raw audio in real-time or batch mode, applies noise filtering to isolate snoring frequencies (typically 40-4000 Hz), and classifies detected events with confidence scoring. Detection works without requiring wearable sensors, relying instead on environmental microphone placement near the sleep area.
Unique: Uses frequency-domain acoustic analysis targeting snoring-specific phoneme patterns (40-4000 Hz range) rather than generic sound classification, enabling detection without wearables or contact sensors; implements noise-adaptive filtering to handle variable bedroom acoustics
vs alternatives: Detects snoring passively via ambient microphone rather than requiring wearable accelerometers or contact sensors, reducing friction for nightly adoption compared to wearable-dependent competitors
Aggregates nightly snoring detection events, audio quality metrics, and user-reported sleep data into temporal patterns using time-series analysis and statistical decomposition. The system identifies trends across days/weeks (e.g., Monday snoring worse than Friday), correlates snoring with reported sleep quality scores, and segments sleep into phases based on audio characteristics. Outputs visualizations and statistical summaries showing snoring distribution, variability, and trend direction.
Unique: Implements temporal decomposition to isolate snoring trends from noise, enabling detection of weekly/monthly patterns without requiring manual annotation; correlates snoring with user-reported sleep quality to surface potential relationships
vs alternatives: Provides trend analysis and pattern correlation across weeks of data, whereas generic sleep trackers typically show only nightly snapshots without temporal context or snoring-specific insights
Generates tailored snoring mitigation recommendations by analyzing individual sleep patterns, detected snoring characteristics (frequency, intensity, timing), and user profile data (age, reported triggers, lifestyle factors). The system applies rule-based logic and machine learning scoring to rank interventions (positional therapy, nasal strips, sleep hygiene adjustments, medical referral) by estimated relevance and feasibility. Recommendations are prioritized based on evidence strength and user-specific factors rather than generic one-size-fits-all advice.
Unique: Ranks interventions by individual relevance using pattern-specific scoring (e.g., if snoring peaks in supine position, positional therapy ranked higher) rather than generic population-level recommendations; includes escalation logic to flag when medical referral is warranted
vs alternatives: Tailors recommendations to individual snoring patterns and user profile rather than providing generic sleep hygiene advice; integrates escalation guidance to help users determine when professional evaluation is necessary
Correlates detected snoring events with user-reported sleep quality ratings and optional wearable/device metrics (heart rate variability, movement, sleep stage estimates) to surface relationships between snoring severity and perceived sleep outcomes. Uses statistical correlation and optional machine learning to weight which snoring characteristics (frequency, intensity, timing) most strongly associate with poor sleep quality in individual users. Outputs correlation coefficients, scatter plots, and narrative insights about snoring's impact on this specific user's sleep.
Unique: Computes individual-level correlations between snoring and sleep quality rather than population-level associations, enabling personalized insight into whether snoring is THIS user's primary sleep problem; integrates optional wearable metrics for richer multivariate analysis
vs alternatives: Provides personalized correlation analysis linking snoring to sleep quality outcomes, whereas generic sleep trackers show only nightly snapshots without causal or correlational insights
Manages audio recording and snoring detection data across multiple user devices (smartphone, tablet, dedicated sleep monitor) with cloud synchronization and local backup. The system handles device-specific audio codec differences, timestamps across devices with potential clock drift, and ensures data consistency when users switch devices or record from multiple locations. Implements conflict resolution for overlapping recordings and provides fallback to local storage if cloud sync fails.
Unique: Implements device-agnostic audio synchronization with codec normalization and timestamp reconciliation, enabling seamless multi-device recording without user intervention; includes local backup fallback for offline resilience
vs alternatives: Handles multi-device synchronization and codec differences transparently, whereas single-device sleep apps require manual data export/import or force users to pick one primary device
Processes audio locally on user's device for snoring detection without transmitting raw audio to cloud servers, using on-device machine learning models (TensorFlow Lite, Core ML, or ONNX Runtime). The system extracts acoustic features (spectrograms, MFCCs) locally, runs inference on compressed models, and sends only metadata (snoring event timestamps, confidence scores) to cloud for aggregation and analysis. Raw audio is retained locally with optional encryption and automatic deletion after configurable retention period.
Unique: Implements on-device audio feature extraction and inference using compressed ML models, transmitting only metadata to cloud rather than raw audio; includes local encryption and automatic audio deletion to minimize privacy exposure
vs alternatives: Preserves audio privacy by processing locally and transmitting only metadata, whereas cloud-based sleep apps require uploading raw audio for analysis, raising privacy and data retention concerns
Infers user's sleep position (supine, prone, left lateral, right lateral) during snoring episodes by analyzing audio characteristics and optional device motion data (accelerometer, gyroscope). The system uses acoustic patterns (snoring intensity and frequency vary by position) and motion signatures to estimate position without requiring wearable sensors. Outputs position-tagged snoring events and position-specific snoring statistics (e.g., 'snoring 3x worse in supine position').
Unique: Fuses audio acoustic patterns with device motion data to infer sleep position without wearables, enabling position-specific snoring analysis; uses position-snoring correlation to quantify positional therapy potential
vs alternatives: Infers sleep position from ambient audio and device motion rather than requiring wearable accelerometers or contact sensors, reducing friction for adoption while enabling position-specific snoring insights
Flags snoring patterns that warrant professional medical evaluation (sleep specialist, ENT, primary care) based on severity thresholds, frequency patterns, and user-reported symptoms. The system applies clinical decision rules (e.g., snoring >5 nights/week + daytime sleepiness = possible sleep apnea) and compares user's snoring characteristics to population-level risk profiles. Generates escalation recommendations with reasoning (e.g., 'Your snoring frequency exceeds 80% of users; recommend sleep study evaluation') and provides guidance on next steps (sleep specialist referral, home sleep apnea test, polysomnography).
Unique: Applies clinical decision rules to snoring patterns and user symptoms to flag when professional evaluation is warranted, comparing individual risk profile to population-level thresholds; provides transparent reasoning for escalation recommendations
vs alternatives: Integrates escalation logic to help users determine when professional evaluation is necessary, whereas generic sleep apps provide only data without clinical decision support or medical referral guidance
+2 more capabilities
Enables evaluation of AI systems' ability to perform chained mathematical operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, comparisons) across both structured tables and unstructured text extracted from SEC filings. The dataset provides ground-truth question-answer pairs where answers require synthesizing data from multiple locations within earnings reports and applying sequential arithmetic operations, testing whether models can decompose complex financial queries into discrete computational steps.
Unique: Combines real SEC filing documents (not synthetic) with crowdsourced questions requiring multi-step arithmetic, creating a hybrid dataset that tests both domain knowledge extraction and quantitative reasoning in a single evaluation task. Unlike generic math word problems, answers require locating figures within 10+ page documents first.
vs alternatives: More challenging than DROP or SVAMP because it requires financial domain knowledge AND document retrieval before arithmetic, whereas generic math benchmarks assume figures are already extracted
Assesses whether AI systems understand financial terminology, accounting concepts, and domain-specific metrics by requiring them to answer questions about real earnings reports from S&P 500 companies. The dataset tests recognition of financial line items (revenue, COGS, operating expenses, net income), ability to distinguish between different financial statements (income statement vs balance sheet), and understanding of financial ratios and metrics without explicit instruction on their definitions.
Unique: Uses authentic SEC filings rather than synthetic financial data, exposing models to real-world accounting variations, footnote complexity, and the actual structure of professional financial documents. This tests transfer learning from general text to specialized domain without domain-specific pretraining.
vs alternatives: More authentic than synthetic financial QA datasets because it uses real earnings reports with their inherent complexity, but narrower than general financial knowledge benchmarks because it focuses only on historical data interpretation
FinQA scores higher at 60/100 vs Sleep.ai at 41/100. FinQA also has a free tier, making it more accessible.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Enables evaluation of AI systems' ability to extract numerical data from both structured HTML/text tables and unstructured prose within the same document, then reason over the extracted values. The dataset contains questions where relevant data appears in different formats — some figures are in formatted tables with clear row/column headers, while others are embedded in narrative text or footnotes — requiring robust parsing and entity linking before computation can occur.
Unique: Combines structured table data with unstructured narrative in the same evaluation, forcing systems to handle format heterogeneity and resolve references across different data representations. Most table QA datasets use clean, isolated tables; this tests real-world document complexity.
vs alternatives: More realistic than isolated table QA benchmarks (like SQA or WikiTableQuestions) because it requires handling narrative context and format mixing, but simpler than full document understanding because tables are already in text format (no OCR needed)
Provides a curated, crowdsourced-annotated dataset of 8,281 question-answer pairs with multi-step reasoning requirements, enabling systematic evaluation of AI systems on financial numerical reasoning. The dataset includes quality control mechanisms through crowdworker annotation, answer validation against ground truth, and coverage across diverse financial metrics and company types within the S&P 500, creating a reproducible evaluation standard for the financial AI community.
Unique: Provides a publicly available, reproducible benchmark specifically designed for financial numerical reasoning with real SEC filings, enabling standardized comparison across different financial AI systems. Most financial datasets are proprietary or synthetic; this is open-source and authentic.
vs alternatives: More specialized and challenging than generic QA benchmarks (SQuAD, MRQA) because it requires financial domain knowledge and multi-step arithmetic, but narrower in scope than comprehensive financial understanding benchmarks because it focuses only on numerical reasoning
Assesses AI systems' ability to perform multi-hop reasoning by requiring them to locate and combine information from different sections of earnings reports. Questions may require finding a figure in the income statement, then locating a related metric in the balance sheet, then performing arithmetic across both — testing whether models can maintain context across document boundaries and understand relationships between different financial statement sections.
Unique: Embeds multi-hop reasoning requirements within authentic financial documents where hops correspond to real relationships between financial statement sections, rather than synthetic reasoning chains. This tests whether models understand domain structure, not just generic multi-hop patterns.
vs alternatives: More realistic than synthetic multi-hop datasets (HotpotQA, 2WikiMultiHopQA) because reasoning hops follow actual financial relationships, but less controlled because document structure varies and reasoning paths are implicit rather than explicitly annotated
Enables evaluation of whether AI systems can identify which arithmetic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, comparison) are required to answer financial questions, then execute them correctly. The dataset implicitly tests operation selection — a question asking 'what is the profit margin' requires division (net income / revenue), while 'what is total assets' requires addition — forcing models to understand financial semantics before applying math.
Unique: Embeds arithmetic operation selection within financial domain context, requiring models to understand that 'margin' semantically maps to division and 'total' maps to addition. This tests semantic grounding of operations, not just arithmetic execution.
vs alternatives: More semantically grounded than generic math word problem datasets because operation selection is implicit in financial terminology, but less explicit than datasets with annotated operation types because operations must be inferred
Provides evaluation capability for AI systems to compare financial metrics across multiple S&P 500 companies or aggregate metrics across different time periods within the same company's earnings reports. While individual questions reference single documents, the dataset structure enables evaluation of systems that can retrieve and compare relevant companies, requiring understanding of which metrics are comparable across entities and how to normalize for company size or accounting differences.
Unique: Provides a foundation for evaluating cross-company financial comparison by including diverse S&P 500 companies with different business models and scales, enabling assessment of whether systems can normalize and compare metrics appropriately. Most financial QA datasets focus on single-document questions.
vs alternatives: Enables cross-company evaluation unlike single-document QA datasets, but requires external retrieval and comparison logic because the dataset itself contains only single-document questions