MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224307225 · doi:10.1108/ics-07-2021-0097

Utility indicator for emotion detection in a speaker authentication system

2022· article· en· W4224307225 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ebenhaeser Otto Janse van Rensburg, Reinhardt A. Botha, Rossouw von Solms

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation and Computer Security · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfusion matrixConfusionClassifier (UML)Computer scienceNothingValue (mathematics)Set (abstract data type)Authentication (law)Artificial intelligenceSpeech recognitionNatural language processingPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningPsychologyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Authenticating an individual through voice can prove convenient as nothing needs to be stored and cannot easily be stolen. However, if an individual is authenticating under duress, the coerced attempt must be acknowledged and appropriate warnings issued. Furthermore, as duress may entail multiple combinations of emotions, the current f-score evaluation does not accommodate that multiple selected samples possess similar levels of importance. Thus, this study aims to demonstrate an approach to identifying duress within a voice-based authentication system. Design/methodology/approach Measuring the value that a classifier presents is often done using an f-score. However, the f-score does not effectively portray the proposed value when multiple classes could be grouped as one. The f-score also does not provide any information when numerous classes are often incorrectly identified as the other. Therefore, the proposed approach uses the confusion matrix, aggregates the select classes into another matrix and calculates a more precise representation of the selected classifier’s value. The utility of the proposed approach is demonstrated through multiple tests and is conducted as follows. The initial tests’ value is presented by an f-score, which does not value the individual emotions. The lack of value is then remedied with further tests, which include a confusion matrix. Final tests are then conducted that aggregate selected emotions within the confusion matrix to present a more precise utility value. Findings Two tests within the set of experiments achieved an f-score difference of 1%, indicating, Mel frequency cepstral coefficient, emotion detection, confusion matrix, multi-layer perceptron, Ryerson audio-visual database of emotional speech and song (RAVDESS), voice authentication that the two tests provided similar value. The confusion matrix used to calculate the f-score indicated that some emotions are often confused, which could all be considered closely related. Although the f-score can represent an accuracy value, these tests’ value is not accurately portrayed when not considering often confused emotions. Deciding which approach to take based on the f-score did not prove beneficial as it did not address the confused emotions. When aggregating the confusion matrix of these two tests based on selected emotions, the newly calculated utility value demonstrated a difference of 4%, indicating that the two tests may not provide a similar value as previously indicated. Research limitations/implications This approach’s performance is dependent on the data presented to it. If the classifier is presented with incomplete or degraded data, the results obtained from the classifier will reflect that. Additionally, the grouping of emotions is not based on psychological evidence, and this was purely done to demonstrate the implementation of an aggregated confusion matrix. Originality/value The f-score offers a value that represents the classifiers’ ability to classify a class correctly. This paper demonstrates that aggregating a confusion matrix could provide more value than a single f-score in the context of classifying an emotion that could consist of a combination of emotions. This approach can similarly be applied to different combinations of classifiers for the desired effect of extracting a more accurate performance value that a selected classifier presents.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformation and Computer SecuritySame topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207