JFA-based front ends for speaker recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We discuss the limitations of the i-vector representation of speech segments in speaker recognition and explain how Joint Factor Analysis (JFA) can serve as an alternative feature extractor in a variety of ways. Building on the work of Zhao and Dong, we implemented a variational Bayes treatment of JFA which accommodates adaptation of universal background models (UBMs) in a natural way. This allows us to experiment with several types of features for speaker recognition: speaker factors and diagonal factors in addition to i-vectors, extracted with and without UBM adaptation in each case. We found that, in text-independent speaker verification experiments on NIST data, extracting i-vectors with UBM adaptation led to a 10% reduction in equal error rates although performance did not improve consistently over the whole DET curve. We achieved a further 10% reduction (with a similar inconsistency) by using speaker factors extracted with UBM adaptation as features. In text-dependent speaker recognition experiments on RSR2015 data, we were able to achieve very good performance using a JFA model with diagonal factors but no speaker factors as a feature extractor. Contrary to standard practice, this JFA model was configured so as to model speakerphrase combinations (rather than speakers) and it was trained on utterances of very short duration (rather than whole recording sessions). We also present a variant of the length normalization trick inspired by uncertainty propagation which leads to substantial gains in performance over the whole DET curve.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.022 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".