MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001936727 · doi:10.1109/lsp.2007.905088

Combining Gaussianized/Non-Gaussianized Features to Improve Speaker Diarization of Telephone Conversations

2007· article· en· W2001936727 on OpenAlexaff
V. Gupta, Patrick Kenny, Pierre Ouellet, Gilles Boulianne, Pierre Dumouchel

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Signal Processing Letters · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsComputer Research Institute of Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpeaker diarisationViterbi algorithmComputer scienceCluster analysisSpeech recognitionMixture modelPattern recognition (psychology)SegmentationBayesian information criterionMel-frequency cepstrumFeature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceSpeaker recognitionWord error rateTest setHierarchical clusteringFeature extractionHidden 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 (SID) methods and Viterbi re-segmentation using Gaussian mixture models (GMMs). We repeat these multistage segmentation and clustering steps twice: once with mel-frequency cepstral coefficients (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 diarization error rate (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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.240
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations27
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Signal Processing LettersSame topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207