MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2292259253 · doi:10.1109/asru.2015.7404844

Deep bottleneck features for i-vector based text-independent speaker verification

2015· article· en· W2292259253 on OpenAlexaff
Sina Hamidi Ghalehjegh, Richard C. Rose

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpeaker verificationNISTComputer scienceSpeech recognitionDiscriminative modelBottleneckSpeaker recognitionCepstrumMel-frequency cepstrumArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)Feature extraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the application of deep neural networks (DNNs), trained to discriminate among speakers, to improving performance in text-independent speaker verification. Activations from the bottleneck layer of these DNNs are used as features in an i-vector based speaker verification system. The features derived from this network are thought to be more robust with respect to phonetic variability, which is generally considered to have a negative impact on speaker verification performance. The verification performance using these features is evaluated on the 2012 NIST SRE core-core condition with models trained from a subset of the Fisher and Switchboard conversational speech corpora. It is found that improved performance, as measured by the minimum detection cost function (minDCF), can be obtained by appending speaker discriminative features to the more widely used mel-frequency cepstrum coefficients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations26
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207