MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087119585 · doi:10.1109/icassp.2010.5495503

Score normalization in playback attack detection

2010· article· en· W2087119585 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Shang, M. Stevenson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhraseUtteranceComputer scienceSpeech recognitionSimilarity (geometry)Normalization (sociology)Set (abstract data type)Pattern recognition (psychology)ThresholdingTask (project management)Artificial intelligenceNatural language processingDetector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The task of a playback attack detector (PAD) is to decide whether an incoming recording shares the same originating utterance as any of N stored recordings. All recordings are noisy channel-distorted versions of the same phrase uttered by the same person; the originating utterances of the N stored recordings are assumed to be distinct. The proposed approach makes a decision based on a set of N similarity scores which quantify the similarity between the incoming recording and each of the N stored recordings. Although satisfactory results are obtained by thresholding the maximum of the N scores using speaker and phrase (SaP)-dependent thresholds, it is shown that the use of a relative similarity score (a normalized version of the maximum similarity score) results in significant performance improvements especially in the case when the incoming recording is a severely distorted version of a stored recording utterance, as well as for the case when SaP-independent thresholds are used.

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)0.010
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations59
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207