MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1589469711 · doi:10.5772/6388

Normalization and Transformation Techniques for Robust Speaker Recognition

2008· book-chapter· en· W1589469711 on OpenAlex
Dalei Wu, Baojie Li, Hui Jiang

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInTech eBooks · 2008
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpeaker recognitionNormalization (sociology)Speech recognitionComputer scienceSpeaker diarisationIdentity (music)Task (project management)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Frame (networking)Feature (linguistics)Transformation (genetics)LinguisticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recognizing a person's identity by voice is one of intrinsic capabilities for human beings. Automatic speaker recognition (SR) is a computational task for computers to perform a similar task, i.e., to recognize human identity based on voice characteristics. By taking a voice signal as input, automatic speaker recognition systems extract distinctive information from the input, usually using signal processing techniques, and then recognize a speaker's identity based on the extracted information by comparing it with the knowledge previously learned at a training stage. The extracted distinctive information is encoded in a sequence of feature vectors, which is referred to as frame sequence. In terms of purposes of applications, SR tasks can be classified into two categories: speaker identification and speaker verification. Speaker identification (SI) is an application to recognize a speaker's identity from a given group of enrolled speakers. If a speaker is assumed to be always in the enrolled speaker group, it is referred to as the closed set speaker identification; Otherwise, it is referred to as the open set speaker identification. On the other hand, speaker verification (SV) is an application to verify a speaker identity by simply making a binary decision, i.e., answering an identity question by either yes or no. SV is one of biometric authentication techniques, along with others, such as fingerprint In the past decades, a variety of techniques for modeling and decision-making have been proposed to speaker recognition and proved to work effectively to some extent. In this chapter, we shall not delve too much into the survey for these techniques, but rather focus on normalization and transformation techniques for robust speaker recognition. For a tutorial of the conventional modeling and recognizing techniques, the reader can refer to (Campbell, 1999; Here, we just make it explicit that among many techniques the most successful ones are Gaussian mixture model (GMM) and hidden Markov model (HMM). With GMM/HMM, high performance can be achieved in sound working conditions, such as in a quiet environment, and for broadband speech. However, these techniques run into problems in realistic applications, since many realistic applications can not always satisfy the requirements of clean and quiet environments. Instead, the working environments are more adverse, noisy and sometimes in narrow-band width, for instance, telephony speech. Most SR systems degrade their performance substantially in adverse conditions. To deal with the difficulties, robust speaker recognition is such a topic for study.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it