MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998280908 · doi:10.1109/asru.2007.4430198

Multiple feature combination to improve speaker diarization of telephone conversations

2007· article· en· W1998280908 on OpenAlexaff
Vishwa Gupta, Patrick Kenny, Pierre Ouellet, Gilles Boulianne, Pierre Dumouchel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsComputer Research Institute of Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpeaker diarisationViterbi algorithmComputer scienceMixture modelCluster analysisSpeech recognitionPattern recognition (psychology)SegmentationFeature (linguistics)Bayesian information criterionArtificial intelligenceHierarchical clusteringTest setSpeaker recognitionWord error rateHidden Markov model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report results on speaker diarization of telephone conversations. This speaker diarization process is similar to the multistage segmentation and clustering system used in broadcast news. It consists of an initial acoustic change point detection algorithm, iterative Viterbi re-segmentation, gender labeling, agglomerative clustering using a Bayesian information criterion (BIC), followed by agglomerative clustering using state-of-the-art speaker identification methods (SID) and Viterbi re-segmentation using Gaussian mixture models (GMMs). The Viterbi re-segmentation using GMMs is new, and it reduces the diarization error rate (DER) by 10%. We repeat these multistage segmentation and clustering steps twice: once with MFCCs as feature parameters for the GMMs used in gender labeling, SID and Viterbi re-segmentation steps, and another time with Gaussianized MFCCs as feature parameters for the GMMs used in these three steps. The resulting clusters from the parallel runs are combined in a novel way that leads to a significant reduction in the DER. On a development set containing 30 telephone conversations, this combination step reduced the DER by 20%. On another test set containing 30 telephone conversations, this step reduced the DER by 13%. The best error rate we have achieved is 6.7% on the development set, and 9.0% on the test set.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207