MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3149444771 · doi:10.18280/ts.380124

Classification of Pitch and Gender of Speakers for Forensic Speaker Recognition from Disguised Voices Using Novel Features Learned by Deep Convolutional Neural Networks

2021· article· en· W3149444771 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Athulya M. Swamidasan Unni Nair, Sathidevi Puthumangalathu Savithri

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpectrogramMel-frequency cepstrumSpeech recognitionConvolutional neural networkComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Support vector machineArtificial intelligenceClassifier (UML)Feature extractionArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Voice disguise is a major concern in forensic automatic speaker recognition (FASR). Classifying the type of disguise is very important for speaker recognition. Pitch disguise is a very common type of disguise that criminals try to attempt. Among the different types of disguises, high pitch and low pitch voices show more distortion. The features that are robust for high pitch and low pitch voices are different. Moreover, the effect of disguise on male and female voices are also different. In this work, we classified high pitch and low pitch disguised voices for male and female voices using a novel set of features. We arranged Mel frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCC), ΔMFCC, and ΔΔMFCC features as three-dimensional features, and these are given as the RGB equivalent spectrogram inputs to pretrained AlexNet deep convolutional neural network (DCNN). We fused the AlexNet output features with corresponding MFCC correlation features. These fused features are the proposed novel features for disguise classification. Classification using neural network (NN) and support vector machine (SVM) classifiers are performed. Simulation results show that classification with SVM classifier using these novel features gives improved accuracy of 98.89% compared to 95.99% accuracy obtained by using DCNN output features using traditional spectrogram inputs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207