Speaker and Session Variability in GMM-Based Speaker Verification
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<para xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> We present a corpus-based approach to speaker verification in which maximum-likelihood II criteria are used to train a large-scale generative model of speaker and session variability which we call joint factor analysis. Enrolling a target speaker consists in calculating the posterior distribution of the hidden variables in the factor analysis model and verification tests are conducted using a new type of likelihood II ratio statistic. Using the NIST 1999 and 2000 speaker recognition evaluation data sets, we show that the effectiveness of this approach depends on the availability of a training corpus which is well matched with the evaluation set used for testing. Experiments on the NIST 1999 evaluation set using a mismatched corpus to train factor analysis models did not result in any improvement over standard methods, but we found that, even with this type of mismatch, feature warping performs extremely well in conjunction with the factor analysis model, and this enabled us to obtain very good results (equal error rates of about 6.2%). </para>
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it