MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1607690733 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2015.7129496

A study on dimensions of feature space for text-independent speaker verification systems

2015· article· en· W1607690733 on OpenAlexaff
Arash Mansouri, Julián Cárdenas-Barrera, Eduardo Castillo-Guerra

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormalization (sociology)Computer scienceTIMITMel-frequency cepstrumSpeech recognitionPattern recognition (psychology)Feature vectorArtificial intelligenceFeature extractionFeature (linguistics)Speaker verificationSpeaker recognitionHidden Markov model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies the effect of feature dimensions on an MFCC/IMFCC-GMM based text-independent speaker verification system (SVS). A typical baseline system is used to evaluate the impact of features based on the number of Mel, inverted Mel, delta and double delta coefficients while keeping other system parameters constant for all experiments. The relevance of the spectral information contained in the features according to their discrimination power was assessed through a GMM-UBM system with the TIMIT corpus. A new scoring method is reported in which the fusion of feature likelihoods is conducted before the UBM normalization. The study shows that features carrying high frequency spectral content have high information gain enabling better performance of the SVS. Similarly, adding more coefficients of MFCCs and IMFCCs instead of dynamic features such as delta and double delta coefficients improves the SVS's equal error rate (EER). Our scoring technique outperformed the traditional scoring algorithm by 9.7%.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207