A Two-Level Speaker Identification System via Fusion of Heterogeneous Classifiers and Complementary Feature Cooperation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a new architecture to address the challenges of speaker identification that arise in interaction of humans with social robots. Though deep learning systems have led to impressive performance in many speech applications, limited speech data at training stage and short utterances with background noise at test stage present challenges and are still open problems as no optimum solution has been reported to date. The proposed design employs a generative model namely the Gaussian mixture model (GMM) and a discriminative model-support vector machine (SVM) classifiers as well as prosodic features and short-term spectral features to concurrently classify a speaker's gender and his/her identity. The proposed architecture works in a semi-sequential manner consisting of two stages: the first classifier exploits the prosodic features to determine the speaker's gender which in turn is used with the short-term spectral features as inputs to the second classifier system in order to identify the speaker. The second classifier system employs two types of short-term spectral features; namely mel-frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCC) and gammatone frequency cepstral coefficients (GFCC) as well as gender information as inputs to two different classifiers (GMM and GMM supervector-based SVM) which in total leads to construction of four classifiers. The outputs from the second stage classifiers; namely GMM-MFCC maximum likelihood classifier (MLC), GMM-GFCC MLC, GMM-MFCC supervector SVM, and GMM-GFCC supervector SVM are fused at score level by the weighted Borda count approach. The weight factors are computed on the fly via Mamdani fuzzy inference system that its inputs are the signal to noise ratio and the length of utterance. Experimental evaluations suggest that the proposed architecture and the fusion framework are promising and can improve the recognition performance of the system in challenging environments where the signal-to-noise ratio is low, and the length of utterance is short; such scenarios often arise in social robot interactions with humans.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".